if the check is for self-satisfaction, i would use the general rule for panache which is "hard DC for your level"
That DC is for the "something challenging enough to build panache"
Sure, that's perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable, is simply declaring that an action is futile, especially if the player had no foreknowledge of it's futility, and stating that they fail a check without ever rolling it.
Psst: This isn't a thing in the rules. That is what we call a House Rule. You could even call it common practice, I do so if I know the outcome of a roll will be inconsequential. But in this case, there is a rider benefit for the player that is a part of their schtick that is tied to that check. So they should Definitely get to roll it.
The GM is the final arbiter after all.
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.
I just don't see that it's possible to even roll when the traits say it doesn't work on that target. I can't try to hit a target outside my reach with a melee weapon in hopes of getting a crit effect: the target has to be possible for you to roll do hit. In much the same way, I can't see a bon mot on a rock to get Panache.
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.I just don't see that it's possible to even roll when the traits say it doesn't work on that target. I can't try to hit a target outside my reach with a melee weapon in hopes of getting a crit effect: the target has to be possible for you to roll do hit. In much the same way, I can't see a bon mot on a rock to get Panache.
Sure, I also wouldn't allow a character to Bon Mot an inanimate object. Though I would let them just spout witty one liners at will at nothing, just with no mechanical benefits.
But an enemy combatant? Yeah, for sure. Simply put, there is no flat rule for non-spells that says you can't target something you can't effect. Even the rule that you cited only really confirms that Unnoticed creatures are untargetable, then goes into other targeting restrictions based on the ability. Your example of reach presents such a targeting restriction. Bon Mot has no inbuilt restrictions beyond a Range.
And while I agree that the situation is like targeting a spell, it definitely is not targeting the spell, so the same rules don't apply.
Simply put, if you can see someone and can talk you can try a witty remark (bon mot). Whether or not that Bon Mot has any effect is immaterial to whether you can actually perform the action in question. And if you can perform the action, you get to roll the check, which triggers your Panache.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I just don't see that it's possible to even roll when the traits say it doesn't work on that target. I can't try to hit a target outside my reach with a melee weapon in hopes of getting a crit effect: the target has to be possible for you to roll do hit. In much the same way, I can't see a bon mot on a rock to get Panache.
You should absolutely still roll if there's no chance of affecting the target, because it's possible to penalize yourself if you get a critical failure. The target being immune to the effect doesn't negate the chance of you tripping over your words.
Simply put, there is no flat rule for non-spells that says you can't target something you can't effect.
GENERAL RULES [not spells] Targets
Source Core Rulebook pg. 454 1.1"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."
Simply put, there is no flat rule for non-spells that says you can't target something you can't effect.GENERAL RULES [not spells] Targets
Source Core Rulebook pg. 454 1.1"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."
And I don't see any restrictions on who you can target. I see restrictions on who you can effect, but those two are not the same. The only limiting factor I see for targeting purposes in Bon Mot is the 30 foot range.
It doesn't matter if you are targeting a bandit or a bear, you can snap off a one liner in either case. The difference is that you can make the Bandit feel insecure. The bear will just keep trying to eat you.
Either way, you did your schtick, and if you successfully hit em with a one liner, regardless of the effect, you get your Panache.
Simply put, there is no flat rule for non-spells that says you can't target something you can't effect.GENERAL RULES [not spells] Targets
Source Core Rulebook pg. 454 1.1"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."
Are you allowed to shoot a ray of frost at a cold-immune creature? If so, then being unable to affect a target doesn't prevent targeting.
if the check is for self-satisfaction, i would use the general rule for panache which is "hard DC for your level"
That DC is for the "something challenging enough to build panache"
Sure, that's perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable, is simply declaring that an action is futile, especially if the player had no foreknowledge of it's futility, and stating that they fail a check without ever rolling it.
Psst: This isn't a thing in the rules. That is what we call a House Rule. You could even call it common practice, I do so if I know the outcome of a roll will be inconsequential. But in this case, there is a rider benefit for the player that is a part of their schtick that is tied to that check. So they should Definitely get to roll it.
The GM is the final arbiter after all.
dont get me wrong.
using bon mot on an immune target would still net no panache from me.
it's just that if a wit swashbuckler, wanted to do something challenging and heroic enough, using diplomacy, as per the general rules of panache, i would allow it with a hard DC of his level as per normal.
the two are different things.
as for Bon Mot. "success at an action" isnt the same as "success at a check" in my book. If the action fails to have any sort of effect, i simply cant see it as a success regardless what you rolled.
What you are describing is actually part of the Panache class feature anyway. I just feel like generally speaking, you shouldn't be forced to forgo a defining class feature (your style) because someone doesn't speak Common, or you happen into a battle with Mindless undead.
And besides, what are we really arguing here? Is it really imbalanced or unfair if a Wit Swashbuckler has the ability to try a Bon Mot against something that can't be effected by Bon Mot? We are talking about essentially an ineffectual action, one that the character more than likely built themselves around. Instead of getting any other benefit on top of Panache, they are JUST getting a shot at Panache, with the chance of stumbling themselves up on their words and taking a penalty themselves.
Hot Take: I feel like a Braggart Swashbuckler should be allowed to continue Demoralizing a Foe for Panache even after they become Temporarily Immune. Why would someone who bases their entire combat style on yelling obscenities at their enemy decide to stop doing so, just because the person stops cowering away from them?
And Temporary Immunity definitely has no bearing on whether or not you can target the foe again: It specifically mentions additional applications of the immune effect.
Edit: No, I don't mean that the target should continue to be Frightened from the Demoralize actions being taken, only that the Braggart should be allowed to continue using Demoralize to generate Panache. Then once they gain Exemplary Finisher, they get the chance to continue applying the full effect of their Demoralization.
Almost like they were practicing it all along, and at 9th Level begin to really perfect the art of yelling obscenities at a foe.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Not true, check the bolded text later.
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.
A splash bomb can still deal the splash damage against adjacent creatures. Do you deny the splash damage simply because the target is immune? That makes no sense. A splash bomb attack on a target immune to the damage can still -succeed- even if the target is immune to the effect - you determine the degree of success by comparing your attack roll against the AC, not by comparing the traits of your attack against the immunities of the target.
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. 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 are literally saying that you won't allow the Bon Mot user to target a creature that is immune - that is directly in conflict with the bolded passage which states that you can, in fact, target someone even if they are immune.
For the swashbuckler, Bon Mot has two effects: On success, it gives the target penalty to preception and will saves, AND it also gives the swashbuckler panache. Target's immunity prevents one of these effects, but not the other.You're simply confusing the term "success" with "causing an effect" - success is a specific mechanic term. If you hit someone with an attack but fail to do damage, that doesn't make your attack a Failure - It was still a success, because your roll exceeded the target number.
As to why a high will DC can prevent you from gaining a bon mot while immunity does not is irrelevant, but if we want to play a "make up a reason to justify your view point": Maybe against a lowly goblin a short one liner is enough to make him feel satisfied with himself (and regain a panache) but he feels that against a huge dragon, he needs to do better than a "yo mama" joke.
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.
And since you like to go for ad hominis - I'm in this discussion as a GM, and I'm defending the viewpoint backed up by actual rules text(You can still be targeted by an ability with an effect you are immune to; you just don’t apply the effect. - Target is immune to one of the two effects, you aren't immune to the other effect) because I want players to be treated fairly, not being robbed of a class feature by a GM who decides that "you can't roll that because I told you it's immune" despite rules clearly saying that you CAN, it just won't have an EFFECT on the IMMUNE creature.
By your reasoning, a sorcerer couldn't activate their bloodline powers by casting a bloodline spell on a target that is immune. The situation is exactly the same: Casting the spell has one effect (on the target) and another effect (bloodline power on the sorcerer). Claiming you can't target the creature is nonsense and not supported by the rules.
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.
Flavor text, but if you want to go that way: Is your view that your panache only works against the enemy that you successfully used bon mot against? Hopefully not, because panache is an effect you gained, not the enemy. Would you rule that if swashbuckler used bon mot on an enemy, gained panache, and someone else killed the enemy... And then in the same combat, 3 rounds later, new enemies emerge, would these new enemies be immune to your panache because they weren't there to witness your bon mot? Obviously not, you have panache until the encounter ends or you use it or lose it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you dont forgo your style.
some stuff are simply immune to one of the 3 ways you can build panache with.
That's all there is imo.You can build panache with tumbling, you can build by a specific action, and you can build by using a chellenging action using either acrobatics OR your Style.
So, a Wit Swashbuckler and a Braggard, can both build panache vs a mindless foe using Diplomacy and Intimidation respectively.
That's the bonus of their style. It's just that they cant do so by using bon mot or demoralize, but they must do something they deem heroic and challenging enough (hard DC of their level) that they get self satisfaction from.
That can be a rousing speech for their allies, as an example for the diplomacy. But trying to be witty vs literally a door, isnt going to net you any panache.
First, who ever brought up using Bon Mot against inanimate objects? It wasn't me, considering that Bon Mot DOES have targeting information for that: A Foe. Unless your foe happens to be a door, but that's neither here nor there.
So wait, you are saying that a Swashbuckler can, "...do something they deem heroic and challenging enough (hard DC of their level) that they get self satisfaction from," to gain Panache, but that CAN'T be Bon Mot? Why? Shouldn't sticking to your Schtick even though you KNOW it's ineffective be Heroic? Being the Han Solo who still pulls his Blaster on Vader even knowing it's likely futile? Facing a daunting foe with a smile and a quip despite adversity?
Also, it's not what the Swashbuckler deems heroic, it's what the GM deems heroic Enough to count. Minor distinction, but a distinction none-the-less.
Sure, there are other avenues to gain Panache, that's not what the OP's question was. The OP's question was does Bon Mot still generate Panache against targets that aren't effected (immune, deaf etc...) by Bon Mot. Imo, the answer is a resounding yes.
I can see the argument that in this case the GM should bump up the difficulty to the Hard DC for their level, especially if the creature in question has a low Will Save. The GM is the final arbiter and has that right.
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.Not true, check the bolded text later.
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.A splash bomb can still deal the splash damage against adjacent creatures. Do you deny the splash damage simply because the target is immune? That makes no sense. A splash bomb attack on a target immune to the damage can still -succeed- even if the target is immune to the effect - you determine the degree of success by comparing your attack roll against the AC, not by comparing the traits of your attack against the immunities of the target.
You are literally saying that you won't allow the Bon Mot user to target a creature that is immune - that...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. 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.
If you can convince your DM of this argument, have at it. I don't run it this way and never will.
The only thing you convinced me of is I get some players like you and the others pushing this ridiculous idea, I'll let them waste their time and resources throwing bon mots at immune creatures denying them panache. Then they go play with someone else who falls for their weak rules lawyering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay then Deriven. Brevity is the soul of Wit. I want you to quote me any rule, any one, that actually backs up your argument.
Not a contextual house rule that applies in YOUR game (not mine, as I'm the typical GM of my group) but a from the book rule that backs up immunity having anything to do with the Game Term that is Success.
Edit: Then we can have a Rules Discussion, rather than trading weak insults and yelling into the ether.
Other posters have posted evidence to support their cases, and engaged in discourse, trying to hash out how the rules actually work.
All you've done up to this point is accuse me of being a Rules Lawyering player. That and saying essentially, "This isn't how I do things at my table, so you shouldn't either. For nebulous reasons."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line as far as I am concerned is a success is not rolling a success even against immune creatures because the Swashbuckler is some idiot who gains panache from self-satisfaction.
Success is applying the effect with the swashbuckler gaining panache by knowing his actions have affected an enemy and been effective.
As far as I'm concerned a swashbuckler would have no way of determining his roll was a success if the target was unaffected.
In the minds of those proposing the rules lawyer interpretation seem to think the swashbuckler meta-gaming would know that a dice is being rolled and that said roll was successful absent any effect on the creature showing it was a successful action. That is a very, very weak meta-game argument.
The player may know the roll was successful, the swashbuckler character in the game world does not. It is more important that the swashbuckler in the game world know the Bon Mot was effective than the player knowing he rolled a success.
You are too hung up on whether the effect determines the success of the action.
The definition of the auditory trait says, "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."
If a creature can't hear it, it can't be a success. It doesn't matter what the roll of Bon Mot is, it can't be a success because the auditory trait says it can't succeed.
This is correct.
It's not the targetting that's the problem. You are able to target a creature that is immune to an effect as per the text on page 451. As has already been stated there is nothing in the trait descriptions for Bon Mot that prevents targetting so Page 455 wouldn't apply.Indeed the ability to target and use an ability on a creature that is immune to it is how Battledancers work. However, they have the text specifing you only need to make the skill check against Will DC rather than suceed.
Wit Swashbucklers don't have that additional text so need to suceed at their Bon Mot.
Should Wit (and Braggart) swashbucklers have that text? Possibly (although it should be pointed out that this may be a balancing factor because of their better Exemplary Finisher and the general power of the Demoralise and Bon Mot effect).
if the check is for self-satisfaction, i would use the general rule for panache which is "hard DC for your level"
That DC is for the "something challenging enough to build panache"
Yes, and for that a wit-SB can use the "One for All" feat, to at least have some positive effect. Better than just the Bon Mot with no effect.
Because that feat exist with the panache effect for Wit-SB's, I don't think there is any reason to consider gaining panache when trying to Bon Mot enemies that don't get the wit.
You are too hung up on whether the effect determines the success of the action.
The definition of the auditory trait says, "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."
If a creature can't hear it, it can't be a success. It doesn't matter what the roll of Bon Mot is, it can't be a success because the auditory trait says it can't succeed.
You didn't quote the part of the Auditory trait that stipulates what happens to a deafened creature, what you quoted is for the user of the action, so yes, to Bon Mot, a Swashbuckler must be able to speak.
Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM. This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can’t hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound.
Notice the subtle difference here. The creature using the action (Swashbuckler) can only successfully perform the action (Bon Mot) if they can speak or produce the required sounds (speak). The Bon Mot then only has it's effect if the target can hear it.
So the ability to hear the action actually has NO bearing on whether or not the Swashbuckler is successfully performing the action.
Think of it this way: An Action and that Action's effect are not the same. It is possible to perform an action Perfectly, but have no effect due to immunities or some other factor. Does that mean that you didn't perform the action perfectly? No.
The Effect doesn't matter. The Action matters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Success is applying the effect with the swashbuckler gaining panache by knowing his actions have affected an enemy and been effective.
As requested, can you back this up by an actual rules text?
"Success" is a game mechanics term and has nothing to do with whether there's an effect or not:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=314
1. Roll a d20 and identify the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply.
2. Calculate the result.
3. Compare the result to the difficulty class (DC).
4. Determine the degree of success and the effect.
Step 3:
This step can be simple, or it can create suspense. Sometimes you’ll know the Difficulty Class (DC) of your check. In these cases, if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed! If your roll anything less than the DC, you fail.
Immunities do not play a part in determining the success of your D20 roll versus target DC.
"You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Note: When you succeed at a Bon Mot. Not "When you apply the effects of a bon mot" or something similar.
At this point, you haven't provided any sort of rules to support your argument and your ruling results in basically telling a player that they shouldn't play a swashbuckler because you won't let them use their core class ability at random times when you feel like it, and I'm starting to feel like you're just a troll.
As requested, can you back this up by an actual rules text?
"Success" is a game mechanics term and has nothing to do with whether there's an effect or not:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=314
1. Roll a d20 and identify the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply.
2. Calculate the result.
3. Compare the result to the difficulty class (DC).
4. Determine the degree of success and the effect.Step 3:
This step can be simple, or it can create suspense. Sometimes you’ll know the Difficulty Class (DC) of your check. In these cases, if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed! If your roll anything less than the DC, you fail.Immunities do not play a part in determining the success of your D20 roll versus target DC.
"You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."
Note: When you succeed at a Bon Mot. Not "When you apply the effects of a bon mot" or something similar.At this point, you haven't provided any sort of rules to support your argument and your ruling results in basically telling a player that they shouldn't play a swashbuckler because you won't let them use their core class ability at random times when you feel like it, and I'm starting to feel like you're just a troll.
Although you were responding to Deriven I though I'd respond on your argument as I have also been on the side of success means you achieve something rather than just made your rolls.
"success" is not a games mechanic term. Success would be but success (as it is written in both the swashbuckler entries and the rules on performing a check) is not as it is not capitalised (Page 17)
However, going through the rules on pages 443 to 445 again I think you have a very valid point on what constitutes a success in terms of these checks. The detailed rules do clearly state in step 3 that if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed!. Deciding degrees of success and the effect does not come until step 4. As a result I think I'm more inclined to go with your interpretation than my initial one around whether it is a success.
I know you can't do FAQs anymore but I wonder if some question would be useful along the lines of: Are you counted as having suceeded at a check even if there is no effect. For example does it count as a success if you equal or exceed the Will DC of an opponent with Bon Mot even if the Bon Mot effect cannot take place as the target is immune to Bon Mot (For example: you don't share a language so as per the linguistic trait the target would not be effected)?
The thing is that as per RAW this all comes down to wording as there are abilities where the entire action needs to be successful and abilities where just the result of your relevant check needs to be a success (or critical success).
If for example you need to wound someone in order to apply a certain weapons grade poison, your entire strike action needs to be "successful" (note the quotation marks) for the poison to work. You need to (success) hit or (critical success) critically hit and deal at least one point of damage while doing so. Which means that in case your enemy is immune to physical damage you can never successfully apply the poison even if you succeed or critically succeed your check(s).
If however you are using a Hammer and have access to the weapons critical specialisation effect you will knock prone an enemy that otherwise is immune to physical damage because the governing rule just states that your strike action (check) itself needs to be a critical success in order to trigger the specialisation effect. There is no requirement to actually deal damage / apply the critical hit in order to trigger the effect.
And the way Bon Mot is worded my best guess is that the Panache effect can still work even when being used on enemies immune to the actions effects.
Actually although success is not a game mechanic term as defioned on page 17, it still makes it into the glossary defined as:
success A result on a check that equals or exceeds the DC. Exceeding the DC by 10 or more is even better—a critical success. If a stat block has no success entry, that means there is no effect on a success. 445–446
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would really like an official answer to this situation. That being said I tend to agree with allowing the swashbuckler her bon mot attempt on mindless creatures and the rules seem to support this (although I can see both sides).
Slinging slurs like "rules-lawyer" seems a bit ironic when discussing rules in a forum labelled rules discussion, no?