|
Hey Community,
The title, as general and abridged as I can make it with limited words, is still unsatisfying to me. So, I'll break my question into specific component Styles.
Q) Can a Battledancer gain Panache using Performance against any foe regardless of interactivity between auditory, linguistic, or visual traits?
Q) Can a Braggart gain Panache using Demoralize against a foe immune to emotion or mental effects?
Q) Can a Fencer gain Panache using Feint or Create a Diversion against a foe immune to mental effects?
Q) Can a Gymnast gain Panache using Grapple, Shove, or Trip against a foe that is an "illegal target" for those maneuvers (ex. size)?
Q) Can a Wit gain Panache using Bon Mot against any foe regardless of interactivity between auditory, emotion, linguistic, or mental traits?
Panache
You care as much about the way you accomplish something as whether you actually accomplish it in the first place. When you perform an action with particular bravado, you can leverage this moment of verve to perform spectacular, deadly maneuvers. This state of flair is called panache, and you are either in a state of panache or you are not.
You gain panache by successfully performing the skill check associated with specific actions that have a bit of flair, including Tumble Through and additional actions determined by your swashbuckler's style. At the GM's discretion, after succeeding at a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, you also gain panache if your result is high enough (typically the very hard DC for your level, but the GM can choose a different threshold).
While you have panache, you gain a +5-foot status bonus to your Speeds and gain a +1 circumstance bonus to checks to Tumble Through or to take any actions that give you panache due to your style. The precise strike class feature also causes you to deal extra precision damage while you have panache. Powerful finisher actions, including Confident Finisher can be used only while you have panache and cause you to lose your panache.
Normally, you gain and use panache only in combat encounters; when an encounter ends, you lose panache.
...
I will add two more complications:
1) The language for Battledancer uses "when the result of your check exceeds..." phrasing while the other four styles use "whenever you succeed at this check...". Are these turns of phrase intended to be similar or different?
2) In addition to the above methods of gaining Panache, all Swashbucklers can use the Tumble Through action to gain Panache (which seems more unambiguous by comparison). This strikes me as a "fail safe" for the class in case the above actions are unable to be used under various circumstances. I thought it worth noting here.
...
Linking Related Thread here.
...
Cheers!
|
Linking Related Thread here.
If you already created a thread in the Rules Forum, presumably seeking a rules answer, why repost it here?
This Forum is for discussing Society-specific topics such as Fame, Chronicles, Reputation, Additional Resources, etc, not general rules questions.
Is there a forum for asking "Hey guys, how does PFS run [rules issue that comes up outside PFS too], if indeed it has an established adjudication?"
|
Is there a forum for asking "Hey guys, how does PFS run [rules issue that comes up outside PFS too], if indeed it has an established adjudication?"
Yes, the Rules forum.
PFS leadership very much doesn't want to take over the job of the main game designers.
Ideally (as far as PFS leaders are concerned, and really rightly so), they only concern themselves with rule questions where the PFS rule should be different from the book standard. Everything else should go back to the game designers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. And when those PFS rules do/might differ from the book standard, where does one ask about it?
|
|
What Ascalaphus is talking about is interacting with Society-specific rules situations, such as (my made-up examples):
"The Additional Resources describes that a Plasma Knife from Scenario #1-XX is a Basic Melee weapon that deals 1d4 damage; I assume it's half Electicity, half Fire, but just wanted to make sure."
Or
"The chase sequence in Scenario #2-XX has a list of obstacles not described anywhere else. What are the Skill DCs I should use?"
Although, TBH, even those sorts of questions should be discussed in their respective Scenario threads over the GM Discussion Forum.
|
|
Okay. And when those PFS rules do/might differ from the book standard, where does one ask about it?
Was there any reason why PFS would use different rules here?
PFS strives to use the same rules as the ones in the book unless there's a strong reason not to. For example, it has special rules for handling loot because these are not steady groups with always the same people at the table, so you can't just say "today Bob gets a magic sword, tomorrow Jake gets the magic staff" because if Jake isn't there next time, then he basically missed out on today's loot.
So you don't need to go around fishing for "how does PFS do this" unless there's really a good reason for it to be different.
|
|
I think it's important to mention that each Forum has a purpose and a focus. You don't discuss Core Rulebook errata in the Advice Forum, Gamer Life in the Rules Forum, or PbP Recruitment in the GM Discussion Forum. If you accidentally posted in the wrong location, your post would understandably be moved to where it's more likely to get the audience it deserves.
The same holds true for here. Society players don't ask Rules Questions here because we know there's a Forum meant just for that. But, for some reason, posters in the Rules Forum have this erroneous belief that they'll find "RAW" answers over here, despite multiple instances over the years of Campaign Leadership telling people otherwise.
When we flag a post to be moved or try to explain why it belongs elsewhere, we're not being antagonistic or argumentative; we're trying to help you get the answer you're looking for, because we know this isn't the place to find it. We're not kicking the can down the road; we're depositing it into the correct recycling receptacle.
Or you could equate different Forums to State agencies. You don't go to City Hall for your Driver's Test. There's a proper location set up elsewhere to handle that, even though the State oversees both. If you sincerely thought otherwise, the person behind the desk would give you the address for the DMV and wish you the best of luck.
I think y'all are convinced that I'm asking a question rather different from what I've actually asked. Oh, well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's more that the answer to that type of question is almost always "PFS doesn't have its own special unified answer. GMs individually handle it by their best understanding of the rules."
So then those threads end up just being people directing you back to the Rules forum discussion.
|
Obviously, there may be table variation, but quoting the relevant text:
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 certainly target a creature with Bon Mot even if they are immune, so you would still roll your dice, which means you may still get a success. Even if the creature is immune to one effect of your bon mot attempt (penalty to will saves and perception), you aren't immune to the other aspect (successful attempt gives you panache), so you should gain panache.
Success is a game mechanic term and it isn't tied to actually having an effect or not and nothing says that being immune equals "attempt was a failure", otherwise, what would happen if you try to trip something that is immune to trip? (Obviously, you roll versus ref save, on crit failure you fall, on failure+ you realize that you were unable to trip the target).|
|
So then those threads end up just being people directing you back to the Rules forum discussion.
Or, worse, they degenerate into a second rules discussion, with even less chance of getting an actual answer, because the Rules Forum is where Designers issue official clarifications.
I have read the other thread, and have to respectfully disagree with Tomppa, although this isn't the place that I'd wish to discuss it over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even more relevant rules text. "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 the target can't hear, then Bon Mot cannot succeed.
I really want to disagree because there's a problem with your logic, but I also really don't want to continue this discussion here.
I need one of those 2 button sweaty decision gifs.
I think y'all are convinced that I'm asking a question rather different from what I've actually asked. Oh, well.
I think I understand what you're asking (although I don't know the answer to your question).
You're asking if there's a list somewhere of rules for which the PFS ruling is different from the general ruling.
I think y'all are convinced that I'm asking a question rather different from what I've actually asked. Oh, well.I think I understand what you're asking (although I don't know the answer to your question).
You're asking if there's a list somewhere of rules for which the PFS ruling is different from the general ruling.
If that's his question, then the answer for PFS(2) is: the guide (URL here). Though, there aren't so much "different" versions of existing rules as "rules not used" and "PFS-specific rules added (like boons).
The answer for PFS(1) is: Campaign Clarifications (URL here).
|
|
So then those threads end up just being people directing you back to the Rules forum discussion.Or, worse, they degenerate into a second rules discussion, with even less chance of getting an actual answer, because the Rules Forum is where Designers issue official clarifications.
I have read the other thread, and have to respectfully disagree with Tomppa, although this isn't the place that I'd wish to discuss it over.
Out of curiosity tho - Do they? I mean, I suppose they -could-, but... Do they? There seem to be some several burning topics that would really need an answer or clarification (like battle medicine/bandolier/healer's tools/amount of hands/need to drop it afterwards or is it stowed automatically) but I'm not sure if they do get answered.
Meanwhile, to the OP:
Table variation is an unfortunate, and somewhat unavoidable. If you regularly play with the same people/same group of GM's, ask them about it. Discuss it in person, and try to reach some sort of agreement so that at least in your local circles, table variation would be minimal.
Rules forums is a good place to find various sources or reasonings to consider both sides of the equation, but people are usually very passionate about their view point, and you usually won't find a definitive answer - and even if you do, there's no guarantee that your GM feels the same way.
I might also recommend asking on the Org Play Online Discord channel - I usually ask there similar question to get a feel on what is the "most common way to rule" the issue, and that helps set expectations for future.
|
|
Out of curiosity tho - Do they? I mean, I suppose they -could-, but... Do they?So then those threads end up just being people directing you back to the Rules forum discussion.Or, worse, they degenerate into a second rules discussion, with even less chance of getting an actual answer, because the Rules Forum is where Designers issue official clarifications.
Yes. Very often.
And once the thread is eventually moved, you then have multiple simultaneous discussions taking place about the same topic, which divides people's focus.
Everytime I've had a question FAQ'd, whether it was PF1 or SF, I always included links to the multiple discussions to hammer home the point that something was "frequently asked".
I could spend time trying to garner a more accurate count, but it would probably be low due to all of the threads that were eventually moved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is one way to run things. And arguably a correct one. I am not going to say that it is wrong, but I am going to give an alternative ruling.
All of these Swashbuckler styles say that the skill roll has to be successful. It doesn't say that any conditions need to be applied.
So even if the enemy does happen to be immune to the effect, as long as the Swashbuckler's check is successful, they gain panache even if no other effect happens.
For flavor and description, it is that the Swashbuckler is self-motivating. The benefits that the Swashbuckler gains are from their own mindset. As the panache rule says, 'You care as much about the way you accomplish something as whether you actually accomplish it in the first place.' It doesn't matter if nobody else cares about the way you do things. You care.
The effect of this ruling is that the rule language on Battledancer about being usable on an enemy even if they don't get fascinated is redundant. All of the other styles have the same ability. If a Wit Swashbuckler insults an enemy that is immune to mental effects, the successful insult still motivates the Swashbuckler. If a Braggart verbally threatens an enemy for a second time (and that enemy is therefore temporarily immune to their demoralize) the threat still motivates the Swashbuckler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes there is a rules issue here.
An enemy can fail a saving throw versus fireball but suffer no damage because they are immune. Normally the distinction is irrelevant but if there is a side or secondary effect it can be relevant. Hydraulic Push, does bludgeoning damage but can also knock back. An enemy could be immune to the damage but still subject to the shove, or immune to the shove but not the damage. Or even immune to both. Either way they can still be hit by the spell.
Panache is a side effect. It actually just effects the Swashbuckler if he succeeds in certain checks. Primarily it exists in the Swashbuckler's mind - he gains confidence because he has embarrassed an enemy. Does it matter at all if the enemy is immune to the effect? Does it matter if the enemy is immune to the check? Those are different.
Maybe.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did a little parsing of the basic rules for Checks and Immunities.
The process for a Check is:
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 goes on to say "...if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed! If your roll anything less than the DC, you fail..." which Step 4 elaborates upon.
The language for an Immunity is pretty consistent too:
With "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" and "If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait."
These both seem to support breithauptclan's claim over TiwazBlackhand's...
|
The reason there’s table variation is because it doesn’t say you gain panache when you succeed at the check for any of the styles except Battledancer. Braggart, for example, says when you successfully Demoralize, and that can be read differently than succeeding at the check. If you succeed at the check, but the Demoralize fails because they are immune, then you didn’t successfully Demoralize them.
I agree that Swashbucklers need all the help they can get, but this really needs errata/clarification if this table variation is ever going to be settled. Otherwise it will continue to be ruled differently at different tables and every few months another thread like this will pop up.
I assume for Braggart in particular a creature being temporarily immune to your Demoralize is supposed to prevent you from gaining panache against them a second time using Demoralize while they are immune. But nothing in Demoralize prevents you from attempting it. So should you be able to just continue to ineffectively Demoralize a creature that you’ve already tried to Demoralize to cycle Panache? That’s just one example of a quirk that pops up if you base it only on the check.
Personally, I think throwing your best intimidating glare (crit success against the DC) at a creature and it having no effect is the opposite of something that should grant Panache. You’re failing despite doing the absolute best that you can do. That’s not showing off. That’s being outclassed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you succeed at the check, but the Demoralize fails because they are immune, then you didn’t successfully Demoralize them.
That is not at all clear. Yes they don't suffer the effects of being Demoralized as they are immune. But they still had a DC and the check can still be made successfully.
One: I am fine with the table variation. People should be aware that it may vary if they are playing in PFS. Other than that, it just means that more options will make more people happy.
Two: Alternate flavor.
throwing your best intimidating glare (crit success against the DC) at a creature and it having no effect is the opposite of something that should grant Panache. You’re failing despite doing the absolute best that you can do. That’s not showing off. That’s being outclassed.
You have already terrified the enemy guy once - badly enough that it caused him to fight worse for almost 10 seconds. You continue to terrify him on a regular basis because you find it amusing. He has gotten used to it though, so it doesn't affect him for very long any more. But still, the look of fear and horror on his face for that second or two is priceless.
Just because it doesn't have an in-game mechanical effect, doesn't necessarily mean that it has no effect.
|
|
One: I am fine with the table variation. People should be aware that it may vary if they are playing in PFS. Other than that, it just means that more options will make more people happy.
I primarily play PFS and table variation that leads to arguments at the table is not good for the game.
Two: Alternate flavor.
throwing your best intimidating glare (crit success against the DC) at a creature and it having no effect is the opposite of something that should grant Panache. You’re failing despite doing the absolute best that you can do. That’s not showing off. That’s being outclassed.You have already terrified the enemy guy once - badly enough that it caused him to fight worse for almost 10 seconds. You continue to terrify him on a regular basis because you find it amusing. He has gotten used to it though, so it doesn't affect him for very long any more. But still, the look of fear and horror on his face for that second or two is priceless.
Just because it doesn't have an in-game mechanical effect, doesn't necessarily mean that it has no effect.
Or you failed to demoralize them the first time, which still makes them immune, then continue to fail despite doing your absolute best (critting the DC while they are immune).
I like that gaining Panache encourages you to use actions that inflict cool debuffs on the enemy. I don’t like that panache encourages you to do actions that don’t do anything to the enemy just for your main class feature to work. If all that was intended was that you hit a DC regardless of the effect, then it should just work like Bard’s Inspire Courage or Marshal’s stances (which Battledancer kind of does).
There’s already a catch all in gaining Panache that a GM can rule something appropriate regardless of your style. We don’t need table variation in the defined actions.
|
|
Good to know. It makes the class easier to play for sure, and that’s something that it needed. I’ll wait and see what Bravado actions exist, but on the surface it does seem like it’s just playing further into doing things that have no effect just to get Panache. Hopefully there are enough Bravado actions to be able to pick something that might actually work.