# Can’t mitigate Oracle curse examples

### Rules Discussion

 1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I sought out a few instances where mitigating the oracle curses come up so I can get a better understanding.

For the Flames minor curse where it conceals creatures more than 30ft away, the Halfling’s Keen Eyes would not lower the flat check DC for a concealed target per curse rules. Would it lower the flat check DC for a hidden target because the curse only conceals at this point? Is it pertinent if the target becomes hidden using the concealed condition from the curse?

At moderate curse, where everything past 30ft is hidden, the flat check DC surely doesn’t get reduced.

Keen Eyes wrote:
When you target an opponent that is concealed from you or hidden from you, reduce the DC of the flat check to 3 for a concealed target or 9 for a hidden one.

For the bones moderate curse, you get a drained 1 condition that’s cumulative with additional applications of drained. A Svetocher Dhampir makes you calculate the drained penalties as if it was 1 drained value lower. If drained 1 because of the curse, you would still be under the full effect of the drained 1 as per curse rules.

What if you are drained 1 from your curse while also drained 1 from a different source so you are now drained 2? Would you be able to count the drained value as 1 lower then because you are not prevented from mitigating drained from a different source?

Svetocher wrote:
When you have the drained condition, calculate the penalty to your Fortitude saves and your Hit Point reduction as though the condition value were 1 lower.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
yarrchives wrote:

For the bones moderate curse, you get a drained 1 condition that’s cumulative with additional applications of drained. A Svetocher Dhampir makes you calculate the drained penalties as if it was 1 drained value lower. If drained 1 because of the curse, you would still be under the full effect of the drained 1 as per curse rules.

What if you are drained 1 from your curse while also drained 1 from a different source so you are now drained 2? Would you be able to count the drained value as 1 lower then because you are not prevented from mitigating drained from a different source?

Svetocher wrote:
When you have the drained condition, calculate the penalty to your Fortitude saves and your Hit Point reduction as though the condition value were 1 lower.

I'm uncertain of the other examples, but I do believe you would be able to reduce the drain from conditions other than your curse.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, your abilities still work fine for conditions other than those caused by the curse.

I tend to think of it as that the abilities apply first, but then the oracle curse conditions are added again afterwards. I haven't yet found a case where that order of applying abilities and conditions doesn't result in sensible rulings.

So with the Halfling Keen Eyes ability: If an enemy 35 feet away was concealed due to fog and you are at minor stage of curse, the Keen Eyes ability would still reduce the miss chance flat check to 3, but then the curse would put it back up to 5 afterwards.

If instead the enemy is hidden behind a table 35 feet away, the Keen Eyes ability would reduce the flat check to 9 and the curse wouldn't do anything because hidden wouldn't be replaced by concealed. If the enemy stopped being hidden, then the curse would apply concealed as normal.

Ravingdork wrote:
I'm uncertain of the other examples, but I do believe you would be able to reduce the drain from conditions other than your curse.

I think my only concern is the drained condition from the curse is uniquely cumulative so interacting with any drained condition could seem like it’s also interacting with the curse.

Although, I do share your interpretation. For example, at a total of drained 3 (drained 2 + drained 1 from the curse), the feat would let you treat it as essentially drained 2. To me, nothing about that seems to directly mitigate the curse effect. The drained 1 from the curse is still there creating a tangible effect that otherwise wouldn’t be there IF the curse was truly mitigated, ignored, etc.

breithauptclan wrote:
I tend to think of it as that the abilities apply first, but then the oracle curse conditions are added again afterwards. I haven't yet found a case where that order of applying abilities and conditions doesn't result in sensible rulings.

That’s a good way of thinking about it. I also appreciate you breaking it down with specific examples.

I just wasn’t sure if being hidden is still considered being concealed or something similar. I think this is one of those cases were one overrides the other/they both can’t coexist. I almost always miss those rulings.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
yarrchives wrote:

I think my only concern is the drained condition from the curse is uniquely cumulative so interacting with any drained condition could seem like it’s also interacting with the curse.

Although, I do share your interpretation. For example, at a total of drained 3 (drained 2 + drained 1 from the curse), the feat would let you treat it as essentially drained 2. To me, nothing about that seems to directly mitigate the curse effect. The drained 1 from the curse is still there creating a tangible effect that otherwise wouldn’t be there IF the curse was truly mitigated, ignored, etc.

I would agree with that too. Drained 2 from some other source, then apply the Svetocher ability to reduce the effect to Fortitude Save and HP, then apply the additional Drained from the curse. The cumulative effect is then equal to Drained 2, but the curse had its full unmitigated effect.

You would still be Drained 3 for anything other than the Fortitude Save and HP - though I am not sure what other Constitution based checks there are.

... Nope, even if you get hit with Drained 3 from some other source, it would replace the Drained 2 you had previously and the curse would increase it to Drained 4. So it wouldn't protect you from that either.

breithauptclan wrote:
... Nope, even if you get hit with Drained 3 from some other source, it would replace the Drained 2 you had previously and the curse would increase it to Drained 4. So it wouldn't protect you from that either.

The more I look at it the more it makes sense. Thanks for the examples again!

I'm still making my rounds on the other curses so I have a couple more questions.

1. Does the 'can't mitigate the curse' rule apply to the positive effects of the curse as well? Like the bonuses and buffs like fast healing? I've only played a Battle Oracle and I think this actually could've been relevant at one point but I wasn't aware of it yet.

2. Does Assurance count as mitigating the Cosmos enfeeble conditions? I did a search on this and I've read mixed opinions that may or may not also be influenced by people arguing if 'forgoing a roll' is still a roll or not.

3. Does immunity or resistance count as mitigating the Tempest weakness? Should I look at this like how bonuses and penalties are divided into status, circumstance, item, and untyped or is it different?

4. This is a more general curse question, but by default, the curse remains active while you're unconscious, right?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those are some good questions.

yarrchives wrote:
Does the 'can't mitigate the curse' rule apply to the positive effects of the curse as well?

I would go off of the precedent set by flame oracle and the self-concealment from moderate curse level. Things that other creatures do can mitigate or remove the effects that apply to them. So since fast healing isn't affecting the enemy directly, they couldn't remove it. Things that you do couldn't remove the effect either. So even if you load yourself down with weights, a cosmos oracle at major curse level still can't leave decoy tracks. But a creature that can reduce fire resistance can reduce the fire resistance of a tempest oracle at moderate curse level.

yarrchives wrote:
Does Assurance count as mitigating the Cosmos enfeeble conditions?

I am leaning towards yes, it would count as mitigating. Not that you are completely unable to use it though - just that you would apply the relevant penalties after Assurance gives you the result. That seems like a decent compromise.

So a complex example:

Cosmos oracle at minor curse level. So has enfeebled 1 from curse (and some other things, but those wouldn't interact with Assurance anyway). If the oracle gets hit with Ray of Enfeeblement and fails the save. Now has enfeebled 2 (the enfeebled conditions don't stack in general, and the oracle curse doesn't override that to say that it does). The oracle then wants to use Assurance(athletics) to grapple.

So Assurance ignores the enfeebled condition and would simply give a result of proficiency + 10. Then apply the enfeebled 1 from the oracle curse and change that to proficiency + 10 - 1.

yarrchives wrote:
Does immunity or resistance count as mitigating the Tempest weakness?

I would certainly think it would. So a ring that gives electricity immunity could remove or counteract other sources of electricity weakness, but wouldn't affect the oracle curse electricity weakness.

yarrchives wrote:
This is a more general curse question, but by default, the curse remains active while you're unconscious, right?

As far as I can tell, yes. I don't see anything that says otherwise except for a note in the Flame oracle saying that you don't continue to take fire damage from the major curse effects while unconscious. I think that specific override indicates that the default rule is that the curse effects still happen even if you are unconscious.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think there’s some edge cases like purposefully blinding yourself (so everything is hidden, use an imprecise sense), have something to lower hidden DCs and use an eye of fortune to technically get better odds than your flames curse while still not mitigating the curse.

Would probably get the book thrown at you.

yarrchives wrote:
1. Does the 'can't mitigate the curse' rule apply to the positive effects of the curse as well? Like the bonuses and buffs like fast healing? I've only played a Battle Oracle and I think this actually could've been relevant at one point but I wasn't aware of it yet.

I don't think anyone would object if your positive effects are mitigated.

yarrchives wrote:

2. Does Assurance count as mitigating the Cosmos enfeeble conditions? I did a search on this and I've read mixed opinions that may or may not also be influenced by people arguing if 'forgoing a roll' is still a roll or not.

3. Does immunity or resistance count as mitigating the Tempest weakness? Should I look at this like how bonuses and penalties are divided into status, circumstance, item, and untyped or is it different?

That will be extremely GM dependent.

I would personally disagree with the use of Immunities and Resistances to Electricity if you are a Tempest Oracle, as it mitigates the effects of your stance.
For Assurance, applying the penalty by considering that the curse rules supersedes the Assurance rules is one solution. It's elegant. In my opinion, an Oracle will be used to avoid triggering the effects of their curse as much as they can. It's not forbidden for a Tempest Oracle to get shelter when there's a storm, so I'll certainly consider that using Assurance is a way to avoid your curse effects. But that's mostly because Assurance is not equivalent to rolling the check and will rarely be very useful.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've gone back and forth on Assurance vs Cosmos a bunch. Currently, I think Assurance doesn't count as mitigating the Cosmos curse mostly because assurance uses a completely different calculation where the enfeebled penalty isn't relevant in the first place. The new calculation is just 10+prof bonus; it looks for nothing else. Someone convinced me by pointing out the line in parenthesis under Assurance's description being more of a reminder than an actual effect that prompts you to directly ignore penalties unlike True Strike directly prompting you to ignore the concealed condition.

A similar situation arises with the Graceful Leaper feat that allows you to use Acrobatics instead of Athletics for High Jump and Long Jump. I think it's same idea of the penalty not being relevant in the first place. Your Acrobatics check would be looking for a dex-based penalty like clumsy, not enfeebled's str-based penalty.

That said, I still think it's a fair "ask your GM" situation.

I am curious on immunity vs weakness since there's a specific order to applying them.

Step 3: Apply the Target's Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances wrote:
Apply immunities first, then weaknesses, and resistances third.

With no Oracle curse involved, if you take no damage because of a type immunity, does weakness of the same type have a chance to trigger in the first place normally?

In context of a curse, I guess you just take 0 damage from the source due to immunity but it then increases by your weakness value. You're still allowed to ignore damage with immunity but not the part that is cursed: your weakness.

I do think resistance vs weakness is treated similar to bonus vs penalties in the sense that both can apply at the same time without being considered "mitigating." Otherwise, any bonus/penalty that's rampant with the curses would make you immune to the opposing penalty/bonus, which doesn't seem right. Just like bonuses and penalties, resistance and weakness should be able to respectively reduce and increase the total damage result as usual. There's just no way to directly remove or diminish that cursed weakness unlike the resistance.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
PlantThings wrote:
Step 3: Apply the Target's Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances wrote:
Apply immunities first, then weaknesses, and resistances third.

With no Oracle curse involved, if you take no damage because of a type immunity, does weakness of the same type have a chance to trigger in the first place normally?

In context of a curse, I guess you just take 0 damage from the source due to immunity but it then increases by your weakness value. You're still allowed to ignore damage with immunity but not the part that is cursed: your weakness.

I do think resistance vs weakness is treated similar to bonus vs penalties in the sense that both can apply at the same time without being considered "mitigating." Otherwise, any bonus/penalty that's rampant with the curses would make you immune to the opposing penalty/bonus, which doesn't seem right. Just like bonuses and penalties, resistance and weakness should be able to respectively reduce and...

No, weakness is not triggered if you are also Immune. That's why you handle Immunity first, it removes all damage and as such it doesn't trigger any weakness afterwards.

The fact that resistances and weaknesses both apply doesn't mean that a resistance is not mitigating your curse. The sentence is: "You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse by any means". Resistances don't remove nor reduce the effects of your curse, but they definitely mitigates them. And Immunities removes them. As a GM, it's something I wouldn't allow.

SuperBidi wrote:

No, weakness is not triggered if you are also Immune. That's why you handle Immunity first, it removes all damage and as such it doesn't trigger any weakness afterwards.

The fact that resistances and weaknesses both apply doesn't mean that a resistance is not mitigating your curse. The sentence is: "You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse by any means". Resistances don't remove nor reduce the effects of your curse, but they definitely mitigates them. And Immunities removes them. As a GM, it's something I wouldn't allow.

I think a complex example is in order. That should make things more clear. Even if we ultimately end up not agreeing.

Tempest Oracle at Moderate curse level: gains weakness to electricity 5.
Some other source applies weakness to electricity 7.
Some ring or other applies electricity immunity.

This oracle then takes 3 point of electricity damage.

I would rule that the ring removes the weakness to electricity 7. Then the oracle curse would put back on the weakness to electricity 5. So when the oracle takes 3 points of electricity damage, the weakness increases that to 8 points of damage.

So it isn't the 0 that would be taken without the curse.
It also isn't the 10 that would be taken without the ring.
The ring isn't reducing, mitigating, or removing the effect of the curse. But it is removing that other source of electricity weakness.

Resistance to electricity would work similarly. It couldn't reduce the electricity weakness from the oracle curse. But it could reduce a larger electricity weakness from some other source.

A good double-check would be to calculate things as though the oracle curse was the only source of changes to the damage. That then becomes the best-case baseline. Other things could add to that amount of damage, and other things could reduce that extra damage - but not to below the oracle's baseline.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd definitely argue in favour of resistance working (because there's a set order and your weakness would still apply without being itself mitigated) but not immunity because that really does remove the penalty of the curse. I'd be tempted to allow immunity to reduce the damage down to the weakness as PlantThings suggests (because it means that you're never actually immune no matter what you spend) but I can understand table variation there. In any case, the weakness needs to apply at minimum and chucking feats at the problem shouldn't actually reduce it so much as minimize any risk outside of the weakness itself.

Hm. Actually, no, I might be wrong there. That does feel like mitigating the problem as a whole, even if you're not reducing the weakness itself. But then what does that say about having a high Strength score as a Cosmos oracle? It 'mitigates' being enfeebled at the cost of character options in the same way that having resistance 'mitigates' weakness at the cost of character options.

Is there something sacred about ability scores? The fact that they're on a relatively set progression, maybe? Inherent to your character in a way that a resistance isn't? A Stormborn Orc Sylph has +2 to Strength and half-level electricity resistance, and both seem pretty inherent to their Ancestry and Lineage, so why should one option be allowed to partially 'mitigate' a curse while the other can't?

I'm not at all suggesting that we shouldn't allow Cosmos Oracles to be strong, by the way. That seems like an obvious case of mitigation being okay, but I'm struggling to say why it's obvious when the resistance/weakness question isn't.

breithauptclan wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

No, weakness is not triggered if you are also Immune. That's why you handle Immunity first, it removes all damage and as such it doesn't trigger any weakness afterwards.

The fact that resistances and weaknesses both apply doesn't mean that a resistance is not mitigating your curse. The sentence is: "You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse by any means". Resistances don't remove nor reduce the effects of your curse, but they definitely mitigates them. And Immunities removes them. As a GM, it's something I wouldn't allow.

I think a complex example is in order. That should make things more clear. Even if we ultimately end up not agreeing.

Tempest Oracle at Moderate curse level: gains weakness to electricity 5.
Some other source applies weakness to electricity 7.
Some ring or other applies electricity immunity.

This oracle then takes 3 point of electricity damage.

I would rule that the ring removes the weakness to electricity 7. Then the oracle curse would put back on the weakness to electricity 5. So when the oracle takes 3 points of electricity damage, the weakness increases that to 8 points of damage.

So it isn't the 0 that would be taken without the curse.
It also isn't the 10 that would be taken without the ring.
The ring isn't reducing, mitigating, or removing the effect of the curse. But it is removing that other source of electricity weakness.

Resistance to electricity would work similarly. It couldn't reduce the electricity weakness from the oracle curse. But it could reduce a larger electricity weakness from some other source.

A good double-check would be to calculate things as though the oracle curse was the only source of changes to the damage. That then becomes the best-case baseline. Other things could add to that amount of damage, and other things could reduce that extra damage - but not to below the oracle's baseline.

Roughly, it means that if you gain Lightning Immunity or a good chunk of resistance, you'll only take the Oracle Curse Weakness damage. Now, instead of being weak to lightning, you are nearly immune, outside a base of 5 points of damage. So, yes, you don't reduce the effects, but you definitely mitigate the curse.
So, at my table, it would be a no. I would not allow any form of Lightning Resistance or Immunity to a Tempest Oracle, as it would be a way to mitigate your curse.

SuperBidi wrote:

A bad example and I need to come up with a more relevant example, or you disagree with the ruling?

SuperBidi wrote:
Roughly, it means that if you gain Lightning Immunity or a good chunk of resistance, you'll only take the Oracle Curse Weakness damage. Now, instead of being weak to lightning, you are nearly immune, outside a base of 5 points of damage.

That actually isn't how I am ruling it.

My ruling would also include the base electricity damage originally taken.

So for a similar example:

Tempest Oracle at Moderate curse level: gains weakness to electricity 5.
Some other source applies weakness to electricity 7.
Some ring or other applies electricity immunity.

This oracle then takes 40 point of electricity damage.

I would rule that the ring removes the weakness to electricity 7. Then the oracle curse would put back on the weakness to electricity 5. So when the oracle takes 40 points of electricity damage, the weakness increases that to 45 points of damage.

The electricity immunity only removes the electricity weakness 7 that came from another source.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
A good double-check would be to calculate things as though the oracle curse was the only source of changes to the damage. That then becomes the best-case baseline. Other things could add to that amount of damage, and other things could reduce that extra damage - but not to below the oracle's baseline.

I think this general idea is a good way to think about it. I personally think as long as the curse penalty value itself isn't directly altered in some way, I think it's free game for anything else around it to occur.

A penalty to AC (Battle), a penalty to strength rolls(Cosmos), and a bonus to skill checks (Ancestors) can respectively exist together with a bonus to AC, a bonus strength rolls, and a penalty to skill checks. I don't see those opposing bonuses and penalties as directly diminishing the curse effects. Instead, they are directly altering the AC, strength rolls, and skill checks respectively. Whatever other factors that change the end result, those curse penalties and bonuses are still in full effect, and I'm sure that's all the curse cares about. I see weakness and resistance the same way. They alter the resulting damage, not each other.

The example Nitro~Nina described does remind me of someone that said they would rule a curse penalty to mean any opposing bonuses would be completely invalidated. You could surely rule it like that but I just can't bring myself to make a Battle Oracle not gain AC bonuses from armor once their curse penalizes their AC or a Lore Oracle not being able to increase their initiative in any way after advancing to minor curse.

A line has to be drawn somewhere and that's why I think it's a valid topic to discuss with your GM. Unless we get more concrete examples on what you can and can't do against the curse effects like how the Flames mystery is presented, it's going be be highly mystery and GM dependent.

breithauptclan wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
A bad example and I need to come up with a more relevant example, or you disagree with the ruling?

Actually, I made a mistake, I didn't understand what you were meaning (your example is quite complex, I have to admit, having both Lightning Immunity and an extra Weakness is something that should never show up).

So, I agree with you: you shouldn't be able to "mitigate" Lightning damage as a Tempest Oracle.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
your example is quite complex, I have to admit, having both Lightning Immunity and an extra Weakness is something that should never show up

Definitely. And that is the simplest example that I could come up with that would show a scenario where the lightning immunity would do anything at all.

PlantThings wrote:
A penalty to AC (Battle), a penalty to strength rolls(Cosmos), and a bonus to skill checks (Ancestors) can respectively exist together with a bonus to AC, a bonus strength rolls, and a penalty to skill checks. I don't see those opposing bonuses and penalties as directly diminishing the curse effects. Instead, they are directly altering the AC, strength rolls, and skill checks respectively.

As long as the bonus and penalty are of different types.

Take the AC penalty from Battle Oracle. It gives a -2 status penalty. So since shields and cover provide a circumstance bonus, that would work fine. So would the item bonus from armor. The Dragon Form spell sets your AC to a particular value, and that part would work, but then the Oracle curse should apply afterwards (same as with Assurance and skills). But Inspire Defence, Forbidding Ward, and Protective Ward shouldn't work because they give a status bonus which would directly conflict with the oracle curse.

breithauptclan wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
your example is quite complex, I have to admit, having both Lightning Immunity and an extra Weakness is something that should never show up

Definitely. And that is the simplest example that I could come up with that would show a scenario where the lightning immunity would do anything at all.

PlantThings wrote:
A penalty to AC (Battle), a penalty to strength rolls(Cosmos), and a bonus to skill checks (Ancestors) can respectively exist together with a bonus to AC, a bonus strength rolls, and a penalty to skill checks. I don't see those opposing bonuses and penalties as directly diminishing the curse effects. Instead, they are directly altering the AC, strength rolls, and skill checks respectively.

As long as the bonus and penalty are of different types.

Take the AC penalty from Battle Oracle. It gives a -2 status penalty. So since shields and cover provide a circumstance bonus, that would work fine. So would the item bonus from armor. The Dragon Form spell sets your AC to a particular value, and that part would work, but then the Oracle curse should apply afterwards (same as with Assurance and skills). But Inspire Defence, Forbidding Ward, and Protective Ward shouldn't work because they give a status bonus which would directly conflict with the oracle curse.

That's an interesting way to rule it, and it definitely seems reasonable! I'm not sure whether it was the intent but it seems like a good interpretation of the words we're given.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
As long as the bonus and penalty are of different types.

Huh, I've never thought about looking at it that way. I think it's mostly because the main purpose of the bonus/penalty types is to prevent similar ones from "stacking" with one another. The different bonus types manage the bonuses but I don't think they care or interact with penalty types and penalties at all. A status bonus to damage doesn't directly remove, reduce or mitigate a status penalty, they simply apply to the same roll (damage in this case). Something that does would probably say "ignore the status penalty" or "reduce the status penalty by X."

Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply wrote:
Penalties work very much like bonuses. You can have circumstance penalties, status penalties, and sometimes even item penalties. Like bonuses of the same type, you take only the worst all of various penalties of a given type. However, you can apply both a bonus and a penalty of the same type on a single roll. For example, if you had a +1 status bonus from a heroism spell but a –2 status penalty from the sickened condition, you’d apply them both to your roll—so heroism still helps even though you’re feeling unwell.

Either way, it's a neat perspective that I never considered before and totally reasonable for a GM to rule it that way. It's definitely better than considering every opposing increase or decrease in a stat or roll as mitigation, because well, that's almost everything in this game.

I'm always thankful for this line under the Flames mystery, which I think presents a reasonable baseline for interpreting being unable to mitigate curse effects.

Flames wrote:
As usual for oracular curses, you can't mitigate or reduce the lost Hit Points in any way, though you can still heal the lost HP normally after the fact.

Can you imagine if that wasn't specified? People would be able to argue that simply healing off lost HP would be invalid and they would have a great point! Without that line, gaining HP in any way would very much be mitigating the curse. But also without that line, I can imagine people would argue it would be unreasonable to completely negate healing once the curse activates.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

My read on "apply immunity, then weakness, then resistance" is:

You have electric immunity, weakness to electricity 10, and electricity resistance 5.

You take 40 electric damage.
- Immunity reduces that to 0
- weakness increases that to 10
- resistance decreases that by 5, to 5.

Immunity is really strong here, but it's supposed to be, and you're still being hampered by your curse.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

You have electric immunity, weakness to electricity 10, and electricity resistance 5.

You take 40 electric damage.
- Immunity reduces that to 0
- weakness increases that to 10
- resistance decreases that by 5, to 5.

Makes sense and easy to visualize and remember.

It also looks like weakness triggers off of traits just as much as it does damage so this tracks in that context too.

Weakness wrote:
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

My read on "apply immunity, then weakness, then resistance" is:

You have electric immunity, weakness to electricity 10, and electricity resistance 5.

You take 40 electric damage.
- Immunity reduces that to 0
- weakness increases that to 10
- resistance decreases that by 5, to 5.

Immunity is really strong here, but it's supposed to be, and you're still being hampered by your curse.

I find it difficult to point to anything wrong with this ruling. But it feels too strong.

A Tempest Oracle should fear electricity damage. A 10th level Oracle isn't going to fear electricity damage if they are only taking 5 points of damage from an attack.

As far as RAW arguments against the ruling, the best I can come up with on short notice is that it relies on the strange idea (that doesn't appear in the rules) that taking zero points of damage can still trigger a weakness to that damage.

So for a trivial counterexample, I could say that I fart in your general direction and deal 0 points of electricity damage and that should trigger your oracle weakness.

For a more meaningful example, consider a Sorcerer with an 8 CHA bonus (perhaps from Feeblemind, maybe from really strange character build) that casts Electric Arc at spell level 1 and rolls a 1 on the d4. That would also deal 0 points of electricity damage (assuming that I have all my math correct).

In both of these cases, any player playing a character that is not a Tempest Oracle would strenuously argue that any electricity weakness that their character has would not be triggered by the 0 points of damage. And they would very likely have the rules text on their side in the argument.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

My read on "apply immunity, then weakness, then resistance" is:

You have electric immunity, weakness to electricity 10, and electricity resistance 5.

You take 40 electric damage.
- Immunity reduces that to 0
- weakness increases that to 10
- resistance decreases that by 5, to 5.

Immunity is really strong here, but it's supposed to be, and you're still being hampered by your curse.

I find it difficult to point to anything wrong with this ruling. But it feels too strong.

A Tempest Oracle should fear electricity damage. A 10th level Oracle isn't going to fear electricity damage if they are only taking 5 points of damage from an attack.

As far as RAW arguments against the ruling, the best I can come up with on short notice is that it relies on the strange idea (that doesn't appear in the rules) that taking zero points of damage can still trigger a weakness to that damage.

So for a trivial counterexample, I could say that I fart in your general direction and deal 0 points of electricity damage and that should trigger your oracle weakness.

For a more meaningful example, consider a Sorcerer with an 8 CHA bonus (perhaps from Feeblemind, maybe from really strange character build) that casts Electric Arc at spell level 1 and rolls a 1 on the d4. That would also deal 0 points of electricity damage (assuming that I have all my math correct).

In both of these cases, any player playing a character that is not a Tempest Oracle would strenuously argue that any electricity weakness that their character has would not be triggered by the 0 points of damage. And they would very likely have the rules text on their side in the argument.

That would more likely indicate that their weakness shouldn't be triggered by RAW rather than what you're saying. "Mitigating" does a lot of work here meaning wise but it still only ever refers to what the curse inflicts on you and the tempest curse does not deal electricity damage to you, it just makes it worse when it happens.

I think it's fair to say that dodging the Weakness to electricity from the curse by completely preventing the electricity damage before it triggers it counts as mitigating the curse. On the other hand, the electricity damage you're immune to is in no way unmitigable by the rules of Oracle curses (it isn't a part of your curse.) The best solution I think is to allow the weakness to electricity to be triggered even when you reduce incoming electricity damage to 0, or just reduce the incoming electricity damage to a minimum of 1. Either of these solutions (mostly) don't require you to make something completely outside of the curse unmitigable but still subject you to the full effect of the curse.

A 10th level Oracle isn't going to fear electricity damage (any more than another character would) if they're only taking normal damage +5. Curses aren't supposed to be feared any more than their effects warrant being feared, and a downside of 1/2 level weakness to electricity isn't all that scary, even if you don't have immunity to electricity. There is no good reason to add effects to curses (like ignoring all immunity) that aren't there just to make your players extra scared of their curse, it'll mess up the balance of them IMO.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

My read on "apply immunity, then weakness, then resistance" is:

You have electric immunity, weakness to electricity 10, and electricity resistance 5.

You take 40 electric damage.
- Immunity reduces that to 0
- weakness increases that to 10
- resistance decreases that by 5, to 5.

Immunity is really strong here, but it's supposed to be, and you're still being hampered by your curse.

Both your Immunity and your Resistance mitigate the effects of your curse, so they are invalid per RAW.

I don't think anyone would object that resistance mitigates weakness. And Immunity, by default, cancels weakness. Both of these things shouldn't work on your Tempest Oracle.

Though most of this seems very theoretical as there currently (after a quick search on Nethys) only exists three forms of immunity for players in the entire game.

Fiery Body - A 7th level arcane/primal spell that grants immunity to fire
Horns of Naraga - 26th level unique artifact that grants immunity to acid
Indestructability - 10th level all traditions spell that grants immunity to any harmful effect, but that one also has baked in "except from deific effects or sources of similar power" which the curse would perhaps be.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The description of Weakness states : "Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness."

The curse gives you Weakness.

Anything that would mitigate, reduce or remove the initial electricity damage you take will be mitigating, reducing or removing the curse.

So Immunity is just cancelled.

The Raven Black wrote:

The description of Weakness states : "Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness."

The curse gives you Weakness.

Anything that would mitigate, reduce or remove the initial electricity damage you take will be mitigating, reducing or removing the curse.

So Immunity is just cancelled.

So if an effect reduced the initial electricity damage from 100 to 1, and still triggered the weakness of say 5 (for 10th level), how much of the effect of the curse would you say has been mitigated? 99%? Half?

To my eye the effect of the curse is the weakness 5 to electricity, and if it has caused you to take 5 extra electricity damage that you otherwise would not have then it has been 0% mitigated.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

For slightly easier numbers:

Base damage: 95 electricity
Weakness: 5 electricity

Total damage with just the weakness: 100 electricity

If the initial damage is reduced to 1 and the weakness is still triggered, that means that you end up taking 6 points of damage in total. That is a 94% reduction from the scenario of having just the weakness. That is quite the mitigation.

And yeah, on the other side of the debate: the 5 points of weakness that gets added hasn't been reduced at all.

So it can be argued both ways. Not saying that it is an invalid reading of the text. Just that it is not the intent of the class feature. The drawbacks of the Oracle curse are supposed to be a major hinderance to your character that you have to way to actually remove. You just have to find ways of playing around it.

 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:

If the initial damage is reduced to 1 and the weakness is still triggered, that means that you end up taking 6 points of damage in total. That is a 94% reduction from the scenario of having just the weakness. That is quite the mitigation.

So would you let a lore oracle take Incredible Initiative? A cosmos oracle use Armbands of Athleticism?

From this 'sum total' perspective of a curse, both of those things would mitigate the end result of the curse. Hell, a bone oracle putting an ability bump in Con at level 5 would be mitigating their drained condition here.

Djinn71 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The description of Weakness states : "Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness."

The curse gives you Weakness.

Anything that would mitigate, reduce or remove the initial electricity damage you take will be mitigating, reducing or removing the curse.

So Immunity is just cancelled.

So if an effect reduced the initial electricity damage from 100 to 1, and still triggered the weakness of say 5 (for 10th level), how much of the effect of the curse would you say has been mitigated? 99%? Half?

To my eye the effect of the curse is the weakness 5 to electricity, and if it has caused you to take 5 extra electricity damage that you otherwise would not have then it has been 0% mitigated.

The rule states that you can't remove, reduce or mitigate the effects of your curse.

So, you can't reduce it but you can't also mitigate it, both are separate notions, that's why both verbs are used.
So, if you take the 5 points of damage due to the weakness, you haven't reduced it. But if you have reduced the lightning damage thanks to a resistance, you have mitigated the effects of your curse. Resistance mitigates Weakness. As such you can't benefit from a resistance to Lightning as a Tempest Oracle.

Squiggit wrote:

So would you let a lore oracle take Incredible Initiative? A cosmos oracle use Armbands of Athleticism?

From this 'sum total' perspective of a curse, both of those things would mitigate the end result of the curse. Hell, a bone oracle putting an ability bump in Con at level 5 would be mitigating their drained condition here.

These are good questions.

I don't think the bonus to constitution should be considered as a mitigation, as it's not something that affects the character. You can't retrain it for example. It's a property of the character.
Incredible Initiative is also easy, as it's a direct mitigation. So it's no.
For Armbands of Athleticism, I think they should be allowed, as Cosmos curse indirectly affects Athletism. If you start considering that you can't affect the indirect effects of your curse, then a Tempest Oracle can't benefit from temprorary hit points as it would be a mitigation of their curse (which does hp damage). You can quickly end up in a situation where a character becomes unplayable.

There are simple cases of mitigation, bonus to initiative and penalty to initiative, resistance and weakness. I think we should stick to them.
But, it's just my point of view, as the description of "mitigation" isn't clear.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Are there actually player facing options to gain immunity to elements?

I'm pretty convinced that weakness from a curse and resistance from a different source works, so a 10th level Stormtossed Tengu Tempest Oracle with the moderate cure active has Electricity Weakness 5 and Electricity Resistance 5.

So if they were to take 20 electricity damage, they would increase it by 5 to 25 from the weakness, then decrease it by 5 back to 20 with their resistance. They are still taking 5 more damage from the effect than they would be if their moderate curse was not yet active, so the effect isn't mitigated.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The description of Weakness states : "Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness."

The curse gives you Weakness.

Anything that would mitigate, reduce or remove the initial electricity damage you take will be mitigating, reducing or removing the curse.

So Immunity is just cancelled.

So if an effect reduced the initial electricity damage from 100 to 1, and still triggered the weakness of say 5 (for 10th level), how much of the effect of the curse would you say has been mitigated? 99%? Half?

To my eye the effect of the curse is the weakness 5 to electricity, and if it has caused you to take 5 extra electricity damage that you otherwise would not have then it has been 0% mitigated.

The rule states that you can't remove, reduce or mitigate the effects of your curse.

So, you can't reduce it but you can't also mitigate it, both are separate notions, that's why both verbs are used.
So, if you take the 5 points of damage due to the weakness, you haven't reduced it. But if you have reduced the lightning damage thanks to a resistance, you have mitigated the effects of your curse. Resistance mitigates Weakness. As such you can't benefit from a resistance to Lightning as a Tempest Oracle.

But you're not mitigating the effects of the curse, you're mitigating electricity damage from outside of the curse (and still suffering the full effects of the given weakness).

It's like saying a Bones Oracle in Moderate Curse with Drained 2 couldn't reduce it to Drained 1 using Restoration because it would mitigate the effect of the curse. No, it mitigates the effect that stacks with the curse, but the curse itself only inflicts Drained 1 (which you still have, unmitigated).

 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don’t think resistance is mitigating the effects of the curse. Objectively you are still taking X more damage than if you didn’t have the curse.

Immunity I’m a bit more unsure about, but given IIRC there is no way for PCs to get electricity immunity it isn’t too relevant right now.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Djinn71 wrote:

But you're not mitigating the effects of the curse, you're mitigating electricity damage from outside of the curse (and still suffering the full effects of the given weakness).

Then, what would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:

But you're not mitigating the effects of the curse, you're mitigating electricity damage from outside of the curse (and still suffering the full effects of the given weakness).

Then, what would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?

Mitigating your curse would be reducing the actual weakness, so reducing the electricity damage to below your weakness. Also attempting to use immunity to not proc the weakness at all would definitely be mitigating your curse IMO.

What I'm saying is that reducing electricity damage to your character in general has nothing to do with your curse and isn't mitigating it, reducing the electricity damage that is actually caused by your curse is another story.

There is a lot of wiggle room in interpreting what is and isn't mitigation and how to resolve it. An argument could be made for immunity not directly mitigating your curse at all given the order of operations (apply Immunity, then Weakness, then Resistances) but I doubt anyone would run it that way.

I don't see how you can justify denying Electricity Resistance 10 from working at all against a curse that only applies Weakness 5 to Electricity, even if you rule disfavourably against the player. Let's assume that resistance needs to reduce the damage from the weakness first (which I don't think is in the rules). If the player takes 15 Electricity damage then it will be increased to 20 damage by the curse's weakness. Next we apply Resistance which would normally reduce the damage by 10, but because 5 of the damage comes from a curse it cannot be mitigated. The Resistance 10 fails to reduce the damage from the curse but is in no way incapable of reducing the electricity damage that is not from the curse, which leaves the PC taking a total of 15 electricity damage.

I think this is an overall harsh ruling of the curse given the Weakness ends up effectively double dipping by increasing the damage and also reducing the resistance by 5, causing the PC to take a net increase of 10 damage. I don't see how you can argue that a PC with the Curse should take 15 more electricity damage than an identical PC without the curse when it only causes Weakness 5.

Djinn71 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:

But you're not mitigating the effects of the curse, you're mitigating electricity damage from outside of the curse (and still suffering the full effects of the given weakness).

Then, what would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?
Mitigating your curse would be reducing the actual weakness, so reducing the electricity damage to below your weakness.

You are explaining me what is reducing or removing the effects of your curse. Let me quote you the rule once again: "You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse"

So, I repeat my question: What would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?

Unless your reasoning is that you can just ignore the word mitigate.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:

But you're not mitigating the effects of the curse, you're mitigating electricity damage from outside of the curse (and still suffering the full effects of the given weakness).

Then, what would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?
Mitigating your curse would be reducing the actual weakness, so reducing the electricity damage to below your weakness.

You are explaining me what is reducing or removing the effects of your curse. Let me quote you the rule once again: "You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse"

So, I repeat my question: What would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?

Unless your reasoning is that you can just ignore the word mitigate.

IMO, not being able to mitigate it would mean that if you have a weakness 5 to electricity that whenever you take electrical damage you take +5 damage more than you otherwise would no matter what: that's it. So a resistance 10 vs electricity works just fine on electricity damage but would still trigger weakness even if the initial damage was reduced to 0. So if you took 5 electrical damage, resistance drops it to 0 but weakness adds 5, hence weakness was in no way mitigated as it was in full effect. Now if you took 12 damage, you take the 2 damage left + 5 from weakness for 7 damage. I see no reason to remove resistance AND add weakness as a double whammy as that does more than prevent mitigation of weakness but actively mitigates another ability. It's much the same as temp hp would not mitigate that weakness by preventing the extra 5 points of weakness damage from the targets actual hp: the electricity dealt 5 more damage and hence wasn't mitigated.

SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:

But you're not mitigating the effects of the curse, you're mitigating electricity damage from outside of the curse (and still suffering the full effects of the given weakness).

Then, what would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?
Mitigating your curse would be reducing the actual weakness, so reducing the electricity damage to below your weakness.

You are explaining me what is reducing or removing the effects of your curse. Let me quote you the rule once again: "You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse"

So, I repeat my question: What would be "mitigating" the effects of your curse without removing nor reducing it?

Unless your reasoning is that you can just ignore the word mitigate.

I mentioned it several times, but being flat out immune to electricity so as to never proc the Weakness would be a very clear case of mitigating your curse IMO. In this scenario you aren't reducing the weakness, you aren't removing the weakness, you're simply not allowing it to ever trigger. I don't think it's very reasonable to make any and all mitigation that is at all in the domain of what your curse affects verboten. It is quite clear that only the effects of your curse cannot be mitigated, and nowhere in the Curse of the Perpetual Storm does it say anything more about electricity damage than a modest amount of additional electricity damage you suffer when taking electricity damage.

Getting Drained from a curse shouldn't prevent you from getting temp HP, even though it technically might make your health total closer to what it would be without the curse and could be considered "mitigation" of the downsides of the curse.

Note however that the wording for enforcing curses is intentionally broad and up to interpretation as it has to apply to every curse in a large variety of situations. I personally wouldn't rule for example, that a Swashbuckler using Guardian's Deflection to turn a hit into a miss on a Battle Oracle is mitigating the effects of that curse, though you could definitely make the argument they're mitigating the effect of having -2 AC. The reason it isn't mitigating it is because the effect of the curse is not lowered AC in general, it is a specific penalty to AC. It is the same for the Tempest Oracle, the curse is not taking electricity damage in general it is a specific weakness to electricity. You cannot directly mitigate the AC penalty from battle and you cannot block the electricity weakness, anything else is fair game.

graystone wrote:
IMO, not being able to mitigate it would mean that if you have a weakness 5 to electricity that whenever you take electrical damage you take +5 damage more than you otherwise would no matter what: that's it. So a resistance 10 vs electricity works just fine on electricity damage but would still trigger weakness even if the initial damage was reduced to 0. So if you took 5 electrical damage, resistance drops it to 0 but weakness adds 5, hence weakness was in no way mitigated as it was in full effect. Now if you took 12 damage, you take the 2 damage left + 5 from weakness for 7 damage. I see no reason to remove resistance AND add weakness as a double whammy as that does more than prevent mitigation of weakness but actively mitigates another ability. It's much the same as temp hp would not mitigate that weakness by preventing the extra 5 points of weakness damage from the targets actual hp: the electricity dealt 5 more damage and hence wasn't mitigated.

What you're saying is that the curse can't be removed nor reduced.

But it can't also be mitigated...

Mitigating doesn't mean only that you reduce the effects, but that you compensate them. Resistance mitigates Weakness, 1 point of Resistance mitigates one point of Weakness. Unless I don't know how to speak english...

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Mitigating doesn't mean only that you reduce the effects, but that you compensate them.

No more than a healing spell would mitigate your weakness by removing the damage... If you take an extra 5 points of damage every time electricity is used against you, then in no way weakness 5 is mitigated, removed or reduced. You took 5 and the value is 5 so it wasn't reduced. You took the 5 so it wasn't mitigated. You kept the weakness so it wasn't removed...

SuperBidi wrote:
Resistance mitigates Weakness, 1 point of Resistance mitigates one point of Weakness.

This would ONLY be true if you allowed the resistance to impact the value of the weakness, which I specifically mentioned should NOT be done. If you always take the extra damage from weakness, it in no way is removed, reduced or mitigated. If you take 30 electrical damage, reduce the damage 20 for a resistance and add 5 because of the weakness you STILL dealt 5 more because of the weakness. You are conflating mitigating the damage you take with mitigating your weakness: they aren't the same thing. If you take the extra damage from your weakness over what you otherwise would have taken then in no way was your damage mitigated.

SuperBidi wrote:
Unless I don't know how to speak english...

Please don't do this. I've shown that I understand the English language just fine. Next time I see this, I'm flagging it as a personal insult.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Unless I don't know how to speak english...
Please don't do this. I've shown that I understand the English language just fine. Next time I see this, I'm flagging it as a personal insult.

I think you took this one offensively when it wasn't my goal. I'm not a native english speaker either and that was not ironic.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Mitigating doesn't mean only that you reduce the effects, but that you compensate them.

No more than a healing spell would mitigate your weakness by removing the damage... If you take an extra 5 points of damage every time electricity is used against you, then in no way weakness 5 is mitigated, removed or reduced. You took 5 and the value is 5 so it wasn't reduced. You took the 5 so it wasn't mitigated. You kept the weakness so it wasn't removed...

SuperBidi wrote:
Resistance mitigates Weakness, 1 point of Resistance mitigates one point of Weakness.

This would ONLY be true if you allowed the resistance to impact the value of the weakness, which I specifically mentioned should NOT be done. If you always take the extra damage from weakness, it in no way is removed, reduced or mitigated. If you take 30 electrical damage, reduce the damage 20 for a resistance and add 5 because of the weakness you STILL dealt 5 more because of the weakness. You are conflating mitigating the damage you take with mitigating your weakness: they aren't the same thing. If you take the extra damage from your weakness over what you otherwise would have taken then in no way was your damage mitigated.

SuperBidi wrote:
Unless I don't know how to speak english...
Please don't do this. I've shown that I understand the English language just fine. Next time I see this, I'm flagging it as a personal insult.

Graystone's way of reading this is perfectly rational. I would argue that it is probably not the intent of the desginer. But then again the intent is not totally clear. You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse is a bit open. I mean one of the curses provides you with a status penalty to AC. Technically you could argue putting armour on mitigates that penalty. There is some interpretation required here. Mitigate is a very broad term.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
graystone wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Unless I don't know how to speak english...
Please don't do this. I've shown that I understand the English language just fine. Next time I see this, I'm flagging it as a personal insult.
I think you took this one offensively when it wasn't my goal. I'm not a native english speaker either and that was not ironic.

That's cool then. If it was meant as a legitimate question about mistranslating English, then that's fine [especially since I now know you're not a native speaker]. I've seen my share of people that disagree in a debate that question someone's comprehension of the language instead of arguing the salient points in question so I'm a bit biased when I see something that can be read that way.

On topic, Gortle covered it well. I see "mitigated, removed or reduced" as nothing can remove the curse or reduce the numbers associated with it: however that doesn't mean other things can't also modify what the curse is also modifying.

Ancestral curse: Strikes gain status bonus to attack rolls/damage, status bonus to skill checks/Perception, status bonus to Non-cantrip spells damage/healing: if we follow your idea that nothing else can modify the rolls/totals then you'd still do your damage bonuses to immune/resistant targets [like mental damage to a chair] or ignore all status penalties to the rolls [making you immune to things like Bane]. It gets worse if you extend it to non-status bonuses.

Battle Curse: status penalty to AC and saving throws... That means things like bard song are negated. You eventually gain status bonuses to attack/damage rolls for similar issue to ancestral. If extended to non-status then no armor, dex, shields, ect.

Lore curse: –4 penalty to initiative with a straight penalty, you could add nothing to the roll. Proficiency bonuses, stat bonuses, ect would ALL be mitigations by your reading... A straight roll d20-4. :P

Tempest is more problematic: your resist fire 5 would wipe out any weakness, the damage people take from touching you would be totally unpreventable no matter the immunity or resistance... and what happens if 2 oracles with Tempest curse fight and one punches/touch attacks the other? You can't mitigate the resistance but then you can't mitigate the damage from a touch... Does the universe implode from the paradox? ;)

There just seems like way too many "problematic repercussions" and/or 'too good [or bad] to be true' parts for it to be the right reading. I'll stick with the roll must be modified by the curse number but that doesn't prevent other modifiers: attack rolls would always be higher/lower by that number over someone without an attack modifying curse, someone with a weakness/resistance would always take more/less than someone without the curse. ect.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Graystone's way of reading this is perfectly rational. I would argue that it is probably not the intent of the desginer. But then again the intent is not totally clear. You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse is a bit open. I mean one of the curses provides you with a status penalty to AC. Technically you could argue putting armour on mitigates that penalty. There is some interpretation required here. Mitigate is a very broad term.

One probable difference seems to be cause, effect and point of origin.

For example for a Flame Oracles Minor Curse the cause (you), effects (you) and point of origin (your actions mostly) seem to align and the example rightfully points out that mitigating the miss cance by spell or item is not permitted.

In comparison for a Tempest Oracles Minor Curse those things do not seem to align because while cause and effect is still 'you' the point of origin for any ability to trigger your curse would most of the time be 'not you'.

As such I would not regard actions affecting any 'third party' ability that could potentially trigger your curse as 'mitigating your curse'. So for example you could still conduct an AoO in order to potentially disrupt the enemy spellcasters attempt at Lightning Bolt or take advantage of a Globe of Invulnerability in order to attempt to cancel out the spell in the affected area.

Think of it as instead of giving yourself a +2 status bonus AC (not permitted) you can still give your adversary a -2 status bonus to his to-hit (permitted).

I haven't followed this SUPER closely but my opinion on the matter is simply that I believe that Immunity and Resistance are absolutely "mitigations" of a Weakness and should an Oracle with Weakness [Dogs or whatever] be targeted with an ability of effect that applies Resistance or Immunity [Dogs or whatever] then the ability or effect would just bounce and do literally nothing whatsoever.

It seems like people are getting lost in the weeds figuring out the steps you take to figure this out but the plain text meaning of the rule in question here makes it easy (for me at least) to understand that nothing is ever intended to interfere with the Oracle Curse effects full-stop, anything short of that strikes me as people looking for loopholes to abuse.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I haven't followed this SUPER closely but my opinion on the matter is simply that I believe that Immunity and Resistance are absolutely "mitigations" of a Weakness and should an Oracle with Weakness [Dogs or whatever] be targeted with an ability of effect that applies Resistance or Immunity [Dogs or whatever] then the ability or effect would just bounce and do literally nothing whatsoever.

It seems like people are getting lost in the weeds figuring out the steps you take to figure this out but the plain text meaning of the rule in question here makes it easy (for me at least) to understand that nothing is ever intended to interfere with the Oracle Curse effects full-stop, anything short of that strikes me as people looking for loopholes to abuse.

So what are your thoughts on wearing Armour to increase your AC being considered mitigation of the Battle Oracle's curse?

That's why there is a discussion here, because there is no clear cut answer. I don't think anyone here is really looking for loopholes (I know I'm not), we're looking for the fairest way of applying this rule. I personally wouldn't make a curse any more painful for my players than it strictly says it is. Which is to say that all else equal the only extra punishment a cursed character should take is what it lists in the curse. The tempest curse lists Electricity Weakness 5 so they'll take 5 extra damage when electricity damage comes up. As long as that happens then the curse is satisfied in my opinion, it doesn't care about any other electricity damage they might be taking so long as it gets its pound of flesh.

Djinn71 wrote:
So what are your thoughts on wearing Armour to increase your AC being considered mitigation of the Battle Oracle's curse?

We definitely have to trace a line in the sand.

Obviously, you can't force a Battle Oracle to be naked. But I would definitely forbid a Battle Oracle to benefit from a status bonus to AC.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
So what are your thoughts on wearing Armour to increase your AC being considered mitigation of the Battle Oracle's curse?

We definitely have to trace a line in the sand.

Obviously, you can't force a Battle Oracle to be naked. But I would definitely forbid a Battle Oracle to benefit from a status bonus to AC.

I'd personally be fine with it, because relative to where they'd be without the curse they'll still be at -2 AC (or whatever their curse stage). In my opinion the battle curse is strictly the -2 status penalty, not the resulting AC or status modifiers in general. Mitigating it would be an effect that allowed you to ignore the penalty in such a way that a PC with the curse has the same AC as one without the curse (or a closer AC than the curse requires) when all else is equal. A Battle Oracle under the effects of a status bonus to AC is still exactly as disadvantaged as their curse requires relative to an uncursed individual in the same situation.

Note that by rules a +2 status bonus and a -2 status penalty do not interact with each other any more than a +2 circumstance bonus and a -2 status penalty would, they coexist while modifying a roll. I don't see a great reason to treat a status bonus any differently to any other kind of bonus with regards to curse mitigation. If you disallow status bonuses to AC I don't see why you allow item/circumstance bonuses from a rules perspective.

 1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>