Can a swashbuckler with the wit style use Bon Mot on a creature that cannot be affected by the Bon Mot (for example, due to no shared language), but still roll Diplomacy vs. Will DC and gain panache if the skill check is successful?
The wit style says
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
Bon Mot has a bunch of traits limiting it - Auditory, Emotion, Linguistic, and Mental. In particular, the Auditory trait makes a distinction between succeeding at an action and having an effect with that action.
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.
Since it talks about success and effect separately, that seems to suggest that you can succeed without having any effect. Which would then mean you can Bon Mot on someone who cannot be affected, but you can still roll the skill check to try to gain panache. But I'm not 100% certain on that, so I'd like to get some other opinions.
I would say that yes, you could target a character or creature who is immune to Bon Mot, or is otherwise un-effected by Bon Mot.
You can still be targeted by an ability with an effect
you are immune to; you just don’t apply the effect. However,
some complex effects might have parts that affect you even
if you’re immune to one of the effect’s traits; for instance, a
spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid
damage to you even if you’re immune to fire.
Relevant rule. While the section is mostly speaking about immunity to damage, it does speak on conditions and other effects.
In other words, you could use Bon Mot against a Mindless enemy, they just wouldn't take it's penalties. Doesn't mean your Swashbuckler's Wit was completely wasted. They still know that they laid out a sick burn, even if the target is unaware of it.
Edit: That being said, I'm not sure whether or not it wouldn't be more worth your time to just use Tumble Through in most scenarios if you are facing an enemy that is immune to Bon Mot for whatever reason.
I suppose if you are already in flanking position with a party member and don't want to move, or are immobilized for some reason.
I am pretty sure undead are immune to Mental, aren't they?
They were in PF1, they're not usually in PF2. Zombies are mindless and thus immune; vampires are neither.
@Gary Bush, Depends on the Undead. Mindless undead, yes. But intelligent Undead not necessarily in PF2. Vampire Counts for instance have no immunities or protections from Mental effects.
But even if they were immune, the Swashbuckler would still be able to target them with Bon Mot, it just wouldn't have any effect.
Really, nothing in the book says that you don't still roll a check for an effect that is "canceled" by Immunity, so you could still succeed on the check for the purposes of gaining Panache, even though the opponent wouldn't be effected by it.
I am pretty sure undead are immune to Mental, aren't they?
Only if mindless or specifically immune to mental or emotion effects.
I would say yes. A wit swashbuckler gaining panache off of bon mot is really more of a function of self-satisfaction for coming up with something clever to say than "the target of your witticism understood how clever you are."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Ah, but there is the rub: You can still "succeed" on a check against a foe who is immune to the effect, it just has no effect.
Nothing states that you don't still roll the Bon Mot check, even if the opponent is immune. That means that the check still has a level of success, it's effects just aren't applied to the target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Ah, but there is the rub: You can still "succeed" on a check against a foe who is immune to the effect, it just has no effect.
Nothing states that you don't still roll the Bon Mot check, even if the opponent is immune. That means that the check still has a level of success, it's effects just aren't applied to the target.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Ah, but there is the rub: You can still "succeed" on a check against a foe who is immune to the effect, it just has no effect.
Nothing states that you don't still roll the Bon Mot check, even if the opponent is immune. That means that the check still has a level of success, it's effects just aren't applied to the target.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
Why though? Immunity doesn't state that a check a subject is immune to automatically fails, it only states that you don't apply the effect.
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler is making a witty remark, the opponent just doesn't recognize it.
If they roll a nat 20 on that check, their remark is extra witty, and their targets inability to understand said remark has no bearing on the success or fail state. It still fills the swashbuckler with pride, or panache if you will.
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Ah, but there is the rub: You can still "succeed" on a check against a foe who is immune to the effect, it just has no effect.
Nothing states that you don't still roll the Bon Mot check, even if the opponent is immune. That means that the check still has a level of success, it's effects just aren't applied to the target.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
Why though? Immunity doesn't state that a check a subject is immune to automatically fails, it only states that you don't apply the effect.
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler is making a witty remark, the opponent just doesn't recognize it.
If they roll a nat 20 on that check, their remark is extra witty, and their targets inability to understand said remark has no bearing on the success or fail state. It still fills the swashbuckler with pride, or panache if you will.
I'd agree here. To go into the fluff of things (yay, fluff!), you're a witty and dashing protagonist. You can even see it as giving yourself a clever put-down to stir up your own spirits. And to say nothing of if your party's around for you to show off to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler is making a witty remark, the opponent just doesn't recognize it.
If they roll a nat 20 on that check, their remark is extra witty, and their targets inability to understand said remark has no bearing on the success or fail state. It still fills the swashbuckler with pride, or panache if you will.
I would totally buy this if the Bon Mot check's degree of success were not dependent on the target's Will save. By your argument, the target's attributes should, nay must, be irrelevant to the wittiness and therefore the success of the quip.
So why is it that the target's outright immunity can't make the Bon Mot fail, but the target's really high Will can?
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler is making a witty remark, the opponent just doesn't recognize it.
If they roll a nat 20 on that check, their remark is extra witty, and their targets inability to understand said remark has no bearing on the success or fail state. It still fills the swashbuckler with pride, or panache if you will.
I would totally buy this if the Bon Mot check's degree of success were not dependent on the target's Will save. By your argument, the target's attributes should, nay must, be irrelevant to the wittiness and therefore the success of the quip.
So why is it that the target's outright immunity can't make the Bon Mot fail, but the target's really high Will can?
Because immunity doesn't make anything fail. It simply means that the thing you are immune to doesnt effect you.
For instance, say you were fighting a creature who is immune to physical damage as an Eldritch Archer. You use eldritch arrow to deliver a spell against said creature, and roll your attack.
What happens?
A. The strike automatically fails because it does physical damage, that the target is immune to, and so does the the spell whos success is based on the attack roll.
B. You roll your attack, the target simply doesn't suffer the damage from the arrow, but the spell goes off following whatever degree of success you rolled?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if a Swashbuckler needed to succeed at a Trip attempt to gain Panache they could do so by rolling a success against an opponent that couldn't be tripped?
I can't call that a success in good faith.
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Ah, but there is the rub: You can still "succeed" on a check against a foe who is immune to the effect, it just has no effect.
Nothing states that you don't still roll the Bon Mot check, even if the opponent is immune. That means that the check still has a level of success, it's effects just aren't applied to the target.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
Why though? Immunity doesn't state that a check a subject is immune to automatically fails, it only states that you don't apply the effect.
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler...
No one has to tell me when something is a failure. If the game had to spell out what you're asking for for every rule, we would be buying 50 book core rulebooks telling you what happens with every action, attempted action, side case, or what not.
Being immune means you can't even try on the creature. It's immune. Any attempt to Bon Mot or Intimidate fails by virtue of immunity. Your roll is meaningless to it as is your attempt at the skill. Not sure why you are trying to argue this, but if your DM wants to allow it so be it.
I don't need the game to spell out immunity is a fail. Just like if a fire bomb wants to make his roll to attack a fire immune creature after he learns it is immune, he can have at it. Waste action after wasted action. It won't do any damage, just like Bon Mot won't give the Swashbuckler panache because he made a check against an immune creature. You can't achieve success against something completely immune to what you're doing.
That is what is known as futility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Ah, but there is the rub: You can still "succeed" on a check against a foe who is immune to the effect, it just has no effect.
Nothing states that you don't still roll the Bon Mot check, even if the opponent is immune. That means that the check still has a level of success, it's effects just aren't applied to the target.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
Why though? Immunity doesn't state that a check a subject is immune to automatically fails, it only states that you don't apply the effect.
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler...
The swash buckler does not gain panache by being extra witty. The Wit swashbuckler gains panache by pissing people off. If the creature can't be distracted or pissed off, it doesn't matter how witty you are.
If what you said were even remotely true, they wouldn't have added the auditory, linguistic, mental, emotional trait to Bon Mot. If you are immune to those traits, Bon Mot is unusable against the creature as other than a means for you to waste your actions and engage in an exercise in futility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree that you need an effect on the enemy to succeed. Mindless won't work. But the wit SB has enough options to still get panache. If you can't insult the enemy (language, mindless) you can still boost your allies, getting the satisfaction of using your wit to influence the outcome of the fight (One for all) and gain panache.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because immunity doesn't make anything fail. It simply means that the thing you are immune to doesnt effect you.Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler is making a witty remark, the opponent just doesn't recognize it.
If they roll a nat 20 on that check, their remark is extra witty, and their targets inability to understand said remark has no bearing on the success or fail state. It still fills the swashbuckler with pride, or panache if you will.
I would totally buy this if the Bon Mot check's degree of success were not dependent on the target's Will save. By your argument, the target's attributes should, nay must, be irrelevant to the wittiness and therefore the success of the quip.
So why is it that the target's outright immunity can't make the Bon Mot fail, but the target's really high Will can?
Allow me to rephrase:
So since the target's attributes (such as mindlessness) must be irrelevant to the wittiness of the quip, and therefore to its production of panache, why is it that the target's high immunity can't prevent panache production, but the target's really high Will can?
Please note that the last part is the most important. Also please note that I did not use the keywords "fail" or "failure" or "succeed" or "success" so please don't base your answer on those keywords.
The swash buckler does not gain panache by being extra witty. The Wit swashbuckler gains panache by pissing people off. If the creature can't be distracted or pissed off, it doesn't matter how witty you are.
If what you said were even remotely true, they wouldn't have added the auditory, linguistic, mental, emotional trait to Bon Mot. If you are immune to those traits, Bon Mot is unusable against the creature as other than a means for you to waste your actions and engage in an exercise in futility.
I disagree. The Swashbuckler doesn't need to piss anyone off to gain Panache, they simply have to perform whatever piece of Daring Do they decided was their schtick. The feelings of the opponent are irrelevant. If they weren't, than the Swashbuckler would lose panache the moment that the opponent was no longer effected by Bon Mot, probably by spending an action to retort. But that doesn't happen, right?
The Only thing required for a Wit Swashbuckler to gain panache from Bon Mot is a success on the check. Immunity does NOT mean that a check becomes a failure or a critical failure, and unlike spells there is no such thing as a invalid target for Bon Mot or any other "mundane" action as far as I am aware.
So you can attempt to Bon Mot a mindless creature and you get to roll your Bon Mot check. If that check is a success or better, you get Panache, regardless of whether the target is immune or able to be effected by Bon Mot.
Allow me to rephrase:
So since the target's attributes (such as mindlessness) must be irrelevant to the wittiness of the quip, and therefore to its production of panache, why is it that the target's high immunity can't prevent panache production, but the target's really high Will can?
Please note that the last part is the most important. Also please note that I did not use the keywords "fail" or "failure" or "succeed" or "success" so please don't base your answer on those keywords.
Simple: Game mechanics. Paizo needed a metric to use to simulate how easy it is to break someone's concentration with a witty remark, so they picked Will. It works in 99% and makes sense.
Immunity has nothing to do with the check for Bon Mot. It simply stops the effects of Bon Mot from applying.
No one has to tell me when something is a failure. If the game had to spell out what you're asking for for every rule, we would be buying 50 book core rulebooks telling you what happens with every action, attempted action, side case, or what not.
Being immune means you can't even try on the creature. It's immune. Any attempt to Bon Mot or Intimidate fails by virtue of immunity. Your roll is meaningless to it as is your attempt at the skill. Not sure why you are trying to argue this, but if your DM wants to allow it so be it.
I don't need the game to spell out immunity is a fail. Just like if a fire bomb wants to make his roll to attack a fire immune creature after he learns it is immune, he can have at it. Waste action after wasted action. It won't do any damage, just like Bon Mot won't give the Swashbuckler panache because he made a check against an immune creature. You can't achieve success against something completely immune to what you're doing.
That is what is known as futility.
That's funny, since I can quote rules text that directly states that you are incorrect in your ruling on immunities.
When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you
ignore all damage of that type. If you have immunity to a
specific condition or type of effect, you can’t be affected by
that condition or any effect of that type. If you have immunity
to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison,
or disease) you are unaffected by any effect with that trait.
Often, an effect can be both a trait and a damage type (this is
especially true in the case of energy damage types). In these
cases, the immunity applies to the entire effect, not just the
damage. You can still be targeted by an ability with an effect
you are immune to; you just don’t apply the effect. However,
some complex effects might have parts that affect you even
if you’re immune to one of the effect’s traits; for instance, a
spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid
damage to you even if you’re immune to fire.
You can still target a foe who is immune with whatever you like, you even get to roll any checks required, and get any of the rider benefits of those checks. Like Panache.
Immunity never adjusts the degree of success of a check, it only stops the effects of a given ability from taking effect.
Buuuut Panache gain isn't tied to the effects of whatever check you make to gain said Panache, it is gained from the successful check. So according to the rules, the actual rules, a Swashbuckler can gain Panache regardless of the state of the opponent after they perform whatever action it was that gained them the Panache.
The GM is the final arbiter, so sure you can make that judgment call at your table if you like. I don't agree with it, and I don't believe the rules strictly speaking do either. I personally like the idea of a Swashbuckler making funny bone jokes at a Skeleton before lopping off their arm with a finisher.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
Given that the auditory trait separately describes successfully performing an action and having an effect, how do you conclude that immunity means failure?
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.
Like, if you can't talk, you absolutely can't succeed at the Bon Mot, because the trait says the action can't be successfully performed. But the part about the target being unaffected if they can't hear the effect is separate from the success part.
No one has to tell me when something is a failure. If the game had to spell out what you're asking for for every rule, we would be buying 50 book core rulebooks telling you what happens with every action, attempted action, side case, or what not.
Being immune means you can't even try on the creature. It's immune. Any attempt to Bon Mot or Intimidate fails by virtue of immunity. Your roll is meaningless to it as is your attempt at the skill. Not sure why you are trying to argue this, but if your DM wants to allow it so be it.
I don't need the game to spell out immunity is a fail. Just like if a fire bomb wants to make his roll to attack a fire immune creature after he learns it is immune, he can have at it. Waste action after wasted action. It won't do any damage, just like Bon Mot won't give the Swashbuckler panache because he made a check against an immune creature. You can't achieve success against something completely immune to what you're doing.
That is what is known as futility.
That's funny, since I can quote rules text that directly states that you are incorrect in your ruling on immunities.
...When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you
ignore all damage of that type. If you have immunity to a
specific condition or type of effect, you can’t be affected by
that condition or any effect of that type. If you have immunity
to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison,
or disease) you are unaffected by any effect with that trait.
Often, an effect can be both a trait and a damage type (this is
especially true in the case of energy damage types). In these
cases, the immunity applies to the entire effect, not just the
damage. You can still be targeted by an ability with an effect
you are immune to; you just don’t apply the effect. However,
some complex effects might have parts that affect you even
if you’re immune to one of the effect’s traits; for instance, a
spell that deals both
That in no way contradicts what I posted. I don't know why players like yourself like to try to obtain advantages not supported by the rules. Because you can target someone does not mean you are successful. It does not say you succeed when you don't apply the effect. You are adding that part in your head.
A successful application of Bon Mot is successfully applying the effect which you cannot do. Not just rolling and succeeding on the roll like success is the roll, not the effect.
Why you would attempt to interpret making a roll that does nothing as success I cannot begin to imagine. I would be surprised if most DMs fell for such an interpretation of the rules.
In your game I can start rolling saves on spells that don't allow a save and calling it a success. I'll just keep spending fireballs on red dragons and calling it a success because I cast the spell and tell the DM some damage should be done because I succeeded.
I'm not even sure why you're arguing this. Did your DM say no and you're trying to force him to comply with your interpretation by finding someone else to support your ruling? Otherwise you're arguing something that isn't supported by RAW and especially not by RAI.
I can see you're going to try to rules lawyer and argue this endlessly. I've given how I run it. How my table interprets it. What the plain language of a success means. The only person you need to really convince is your DM.
Paizo doesn't need to write an encyclopedia on every ability for me to understand what they mean by a success.
I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:
You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.
If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.
Battledancer actually has to do better than merely succeeding. All the other styles only need to succeed, which means equaling or exceeding the target DC. Battledancer needs to exceed the target DC, which gives them an effective -1 at their basic panache-gaining (since exactly meeting the DC does not give a battledancer panache).
The reason battledancer doesn't require the target be fascinated is because you gain panache from the Perform skill action. Fascinating Performance uses the Perform skill action, so you can still get panache from that too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to rephrase:
So since the target's attributes (such as mindlessness) must be irrelevant to the wittiness of the quip, and therefore to its production of panache, why is it that the target's high immunity can't prevent panache production, but the target's really high Will can?
Please note that the last part is the most important. Also please note that I did not use the keywords "fail" or "failure" or "succeed" or "success" so please don't base your answer on those keywords.
Simple: Game mechanics. Paizo needed a metric to use to simulate how easy it is to break someone's concentration with a witty remark, so they picked Will. It works in 99% and makes sense.
Immunity has nothing to do with the check for Bon Mot. It simply stops the effects of Bon Mot from applying.
If the in-game explanation of the use of Will is that it simulates breaking someone's concentration, what's the in-game explanation of why inability to break their concentration has different effects on the swashbuckler depending on whether said inability arises from high Will or from mindlessness?
And "because you still get to make the check" is not an in-game explanation.
Succeeding at a check and succeeding at Bon Mot not the same thing. Not sure how your DM works, but if you tried a Bon Mot against a mindless undead or golem, I would tell you that you could roll and then tell you that it failed because they are immune. Then I wouldn't even let you roll after that as you have been informed they are immune after you wasted your action the first time.
The only reason I would even let you roll to start with is because you don't know they are immune and I would let you waste your action, so you would gain the information that they are immune.
Given that the auditory trait separately describes successfully performing an action and having an effect, how do you conclude that immunity means failure?
Like, if you can't talk, you absolutely can't succeed at the Bon Mot, because the trait says the action can't be successfully performed. But the part about the target being unaffected if they can't hear the effect is separate from the success part.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.
By understanding what the word success means.
Do you both really play with DMs who fall for this? I've never played with real rules lawyers before who try to force their viewpoint on a DM after arguing a rule endlessly when it is clearly not intended.
Telling a player that they failed is far different than stating that their action had no effect. In the case of Bon Mot, the swashbuckler is making a witty remark, the opponent just doesn't recognize it.
If they roll a nat 20 on that check, their remark is extra witty, and their targets inability to understand said remark has no bearing on the success or fail state. It still fills the swashbuckler with pride, or panache if you will.
I would totally buy this if the Bon Mot check's degree of success were not dependent on the target's Will save. By your argument, the target's attributes should, nay must, be irrelevant to the wittiness and therefore the success of the quip.
So why is it that the target's outright immunity can't make the Bon Mot fail, but the target's really high Will can?
Because immunity doesn't make anything fail. It simply means that the thing you are immune to doesnt effect you.
For instance, say you were fighting a creature who is immune to physical damage as an Eldritch Archer. You use eldritch arrow to deliver a spell against said creature, and roll your attack.
What happens?
A. The strike automatically fails because it does physical damage, that the target is immune to, and so does the the spell whos success is based on the attack roll.
B. You roll your attack, the target simply doesn't suffer the damage from the arrow, but the spell goes off following whatever degree of success you rolled?
This situation is more like targeting a spell: "If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature." So in this situation, you never get to roll for success because it isn't the right target. The target of bon mot isn't a valid target if it can't understand you.
Also from the effects section "Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like targeting a Spell, is not targeting a spell. There is no inbuilt restriction on targeting an action (or even a spell) against a creature who has an immunity.
And since there is no "Target" parameter to Bon Mot, I don't see any reason that you couldn't target any given creature, so long as you can detect them.
The key issue is whether or not "success" means:
1. You rolled a Success on the check to Bon Mot.
2. Your Bon Mot effected the target.
2 usually goes with 1, but there are situations where you can achieve 1 without achieving 2. Not sharing a language for instance prevents a character from being effected by Bon Mot, but the Swashbuckler still gets to spout his quip, he still rolled his skill check to Bon Mot.
Nothing about immunity makes something fail. Nothing about Deafness makes an auditory check fail, it simply stops the effect from taking effect.
Since the Panache feature doesn't care about the effect outcome of the skill action you make, you would still gain Panache. Being witty to a deaf audience is tough, but you can still make yourself laugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like targeting a Spell, is not targeting a spell. There is no inbuilt restriction on targeting an action (or even a spell) against a creature who has an immunity.
Bon mot: "Choose a foe within 30 feet"
Linguistic: "A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target understands the language you are using."Mental: "It has no effect on an object or a mindless creature."
Auditory: "A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it."
Bon mot targets a foe, only works if the target understands the language you are using, Has no effect on objects or mindless creatures, and no effect on these that can't hear. It's VERY, VERY hard to read the feat and the traits involved to see this feat succeeding on creatures it can't work on or aren't effected. Not working or effected means #2 isn't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording is you succeed at a Bon Mot.
You have not succeeded at a Bon Mot if the target is immune to its effects. If it had the wording about just suceeding at the check, then you would just need to beat the target's will save as you say and you would gain panache (As with the description for Battledancer).
But it doesn't say this, it very clearly says you succeed at a Bon Mot.
In short, if you allow Bon Mot to count as a success vs a mindless "foe", what prohibits you from naming random pebbles as foes and using Bon Mot vs doors and such for autosuccess and autopanache?
Or better yet, use it on your clothes: you don't want to have to look around for targets... Clothes can be wily foes whe n you try to put them on. ;)
Can you succeed a check on an action that can never succeed itself in order to trigger secondary effects?
So can you pass the DC for a 20 feet horizontal jump in a room that is only 10 feet in diameter or - while using a regular Hammer and related crit spec - pass an enemys AC by 10 and knocking it prone even if it is otherwise immue to physical damage?
Technically I'd say yes.
Based on the mindless zombie with Bon Mot example, I'm imagining Ash from Evil Dead making all his quips while he's mowing down Skeletons. Definitely seems like he gets "Panache" as he makes his quips.
Do you both really play with DMs who fall for this? I've never played with real rules lawyers before who try to force their viewpoint on a DM after arguing a rule endlessly when it is clearly not intended.
Are you confusing me for someone else? I don't understand how you can quote my first reply in this thread and liken me to arguing a rule endlessly.
I am both a player and a GM. I have not yet played a wit swashbuckler, nor have I run a game for one. I didn't think the rules on this were clear, so that's why I made the thread - so I could get an understanding of how the ability works before it came up in a game.
Given the clear lack of consensus in this thread, it's obvious that the rule is unclear. I'll probably allow the panache-gaining in games I run, but if a GM disallowed it when I was a player, I wouldn't complain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the mindless zombie with Bon Mot example, I'm imagining Ash from Evil Dead making all his quips while he's mowing down Skeletons. Definitely seems like he gets "Panache" as he makes his quips.
I would be inclined to just house rule it to say a Swashbuckler can roll diplomacy against some DC in order to gain Panache, by being satisfied by how clever their quip is. Since what you're talking about is IMO what the Wit is supposed to be about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wit
You are friendly, clever, and full of humor, always knowing just what to say in any situation. Your witticisms leave foes unprepared for the skill and speed of your attacks. You are trained in Diplomacy and gain the Bon Mot skill feat. You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
If a foe cannot hear you, or cannot understand you (whether due to language or mindless), they are not going to be unprepared for your attack.
Your witticism will have no effect.
If you tell me my mother was a hamster, and my father smelled of elderberries, but I do not understand your language, I would not be shocked at the silliness of your remark or be offended by your remark.
The style is not about making you feel good about yourself, but rather about making your enemy go "huh? what'd you say..." and therefore they need to be able to hear and understand you.
Imagine you're fighting foe A and generate panache.
Foe B who is totally unrelated to foe B joins the combat.
You can use a finisher against B.
There's no need to have distracted B etc. All you have to do is have panache.
Imagine you're fighting foe A and generate panache.
Foe B who is totally unrelated to foe B joins the combat.
You can use a finisher against B.
There's no need to have distracted B etc. All you have to do is have panache.
Panache and finishers do not have the Linguistic trait and foe A is still distracted by the feat so it works as presented. Limitations on gaining panache in no way impacts your ability to USE panache.
Given the clear lack of consensus in this thread, it's obvious that the rule is unclear. I'll probably allow the panache-gaining in games I run, but if a GM disallowed it when I was a player, I wouldn't complain.
Which seems totally fair to me, for as much as I can see Bon Mot technically working I also see no reason why a GM could not technically disallow its usage on certain targets by virtue of the targeting rules: "...or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the clear lack of consensus in this thread, it's obvious that the rule is unclear. I'll probably allow the panache-gaining in games I run, but if a GM disallowed it when I was a player, I wouldn't complain.Which seems totally fair to me, for as much as I can see Bon Mot technically working I also see no reason why a GM could not technically disallow its usage on certain targets by virtue of the targeting rules: "...or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted."
For me it's 'Targeting can be difficult or impossible if the creature doesn’t match restrictions on who you can target' and "A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target understands the language you are using" and... There are quite a few reasons it doesn't work IMO, and I'm having trouble with the concept of even rolling when you don't have a valid target as you can never effect them: there isn't anything to roll against as there wasn't an effect on the creature.
"Wit
You are friendly, clever, and full of humor, always knowing just what to say in any situation. Your witticisms leave foes unprepared for the skill and speed of your attacks. You are trained in Diplomacy and gain the Bon Mot skill feat. You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
If a foe cannot hear you, or cannot understand you (whether due to language or mindless), they are not going to be unprepared for your attack.
Your witticism will have no effect.
If you tell me my mother was a hamster, and my father smelled of elderberries, but I do not understand your language, I would not be shocked at the silliness of your remark or be offended by your remark.
The style is not about making you feel good about yourself, but rather about making your enemy go "huh? what'd you say..." and therefore they need to be able to hear and understand you.
Take up the good fight with the rules lawyers, Mad Gene. Good luck.
So I think the actual rule is that you do need to have Bon Mot to do something to gain panache. But that's not doing a good job filling the fantasy of what the Wit should be.
To me, the Wit is supposed to emulate the mouthy protagonist we see in so much media, who always has a good line to give in a dire situation. Rarely in these these media properties, does the hero's cleverness actually impact the enemies; the benefit is mostly for the audience.
But if we want to reproduce the feel of this character in Pathfinder, we want the Wit to have an incentive to engage in clever banter with a gelatinous cube or stone golem or anything else that doesn't talk.
Maybe this falls into the "tough crowd" category, and the awkwardness that follows. :)
So I think the actual rule is that you do need to have Bon Mot to do something to gain panache. But that's not doing a good job filling the fantasy of what the Wit should be.
To me, the Wit is supposed to emulate the mouthy protagonist we see in so much media, who always has a good line to give in a dire situation. Rarely in these these media properties, does the hero's cleverness actually impact the enemies; the benefit is mostly for the audience.
But if we want to reproduce the feel of this character in Pathfinder, we want the Wit to have an incentive to engage in clever banter with a gelatinous cube or stone golem or anything else that doesn't talk.
Yes, if it's meant to emulate characters like Ash [Evil Dead] cracking wise, it'd be better to have it be a check against a Level-Based DC for the encounter instead of a particular foe and allow it to work a number of times equal to the number of foes.
Eh, I imagine there will be a lot of table variance on this one. I do want to say that I get both sides here, and can see where everyone is coming from.
Me personally, I look at this particular rules oddity thus:
There is a difference between a Check and an Effect. It's true that effect's are often caused by checks, but the two are not one and the same.
When I read, "You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe," I don't see that as meaning the effect must apply, I see it as stating simply that you must succeed at the Bon Mot check, regardless of the actual outcome.
I see no direct reason why you couldn't target a Deafened character, or one with an immunity to mental/linguistic/verbal effects with Bon Mot. To me you can Bon Mot a target if you can speak, and you know the target is there. The effect on the other hand is at question.
But Panache is not a direct effect of Bon Mot, you gain it due to the Style class feature, which triggers when you roll a successful Bon Mot.
Again, I see no reason to believe that immunity or any other similar circumstance reduces a successful check to less than successful. If a fighter performs a perfect strike, but the target takes no damage due to resistances or immunities, they still performed a perfect strike. The strike just had no effect.