|
As title.
Are there actions that count as none of the "Preferred Actions" with respect to the Curse of Meddling Ancestors?
1) Using a Sustain a Spell action?
2) Using an Interact or Concentrate action?
3) What if one of the above actions has a Subordinate "Preferred Action" (Strike, Perception and Skill Actions, Cast a Spell)?
The ancestral spirits you commune with haunt you and meddle with your belongings and actions, either out of a well-intentioned (but ultimately detrimental) attempt to assist you, as punishment for your audacity in circumventing the traditional means of achieving divine power, for their own amusement, or a mixture of the above. Your hair, clothing, and belongings constantly shift and stir, seemingly of their own volition.
Minor Curse One of your ancestors becomes predominant in their meddling. The first time you gain this effect each day, roll 1d4 on Table 2–4: Ancestral Influence to determine which type of ancestor becomes predominant. This predominant ancestor guides you to use their preferred type of action. When you try to use one of the types of actions listed for the other ancestors, you must succeed at a DC 4 flat check. On a failure, you spend the action but gain no effect (though you don't lose the spell if you were Casting a Spell). If your action would take 1 minute or longer, it's long enough that you can overcome the meddling, and you don't need to attempt a flat check.
During combat or another tense, round-by-round encounter, other ancestors wrestle for control of your actions. When you roll initiative, and then at the end of each of your turns during the encounter, roll 1d4 and change your predominant ancestor appropriately. Once the encounter ends, you return to the influence of the ancestor you first rolled for the day.
Moderate Curse The flat check DC to use other actions is 6, and you get the moderate curse benefit listed for your predominant ancestor in Table 2–4.
Major Curse The flat check DC is 8, and you get the major curse benefit listed for your predominant ancestor instead of the moderate curse benefit.
...
Table 2–4: Ancestral Influence
1) "Martial": Strikes / Your Strikes gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls and a +2 status bonus to damage
2) "Skillful": Perception and Skill actions / You gain a +1 status bonus to skill checks and Perception checks
3) "Spellcasting": Cast a Spell / Non-cantrip spells without a duration gain a status bonus to their damage and healing equal to the spell's level
...
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
...
I think the answer is "exclude" but wanted to check, because this would allow somewhat of an exploit by circumventing the flat check entirely for these types of activities...
Cheers.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As title.
Are there actions that count as none of the "Preferred Actions" with respect to the Curse of Meddling Ancestors?
Yes, absolutely. For example, if you took a Stride action, that's neither a Strike, skill or Perception check, or casting a spell. Therefore, the ancestors don't care.
1) Using a Sustain a Spell action?
2) Using an Interact or Concentrate action?
Sustain a Spell and Interact aren't spellcasting, striking or Perception or skill checks, so the spirits don't care.
Concentrate isn't an action at all, it's a trait that some actions have. So strictly speaking, the ancestors are fine with it. However, the concentrate trait might be on an action that they do have an issue with. For example, if you're casting a spell and the verbal component has the concentrate trait. It's not the concentrate trait that the ancestors get upset about, it's you casting a spell.
3) What if one of the above actions has a Subordinate "Preferred Action" (Strike, Perception and Skill Actions, Cast a Spell)?
The way the curse is worded, the ancestors get upset if you try to use an action that a rival ancestor prefers. Take Eldritch Shot as an example: you cast a spell and then make a strike. If your martial ancestor is dominant, he'd first get upset about you casting a spell, even though it's all to make a Strike in the end. However, if you do pass the flat check, he'd give you a bonus on that Strike.
Likewise if your spellcasting ancestor was dominant, he'd maybe boost your spell, but then try to interfere with you making the Strike to deliver it.
(Don't take Eldritch Archer on a battle oracle, obviously. Not a happy combination.)
3) What if one of the above actions has a Subordinate "Preferred Action" (Strike, Perception and Skill Actions, Cast a Spell)?The way the curse is worded, the ancestors get upset if you try to use an action that a rival ancestor prefers. Take Eldritch Shot as an example: you cast a spell and then make a strike. If your martial ancestor is dominant, he'd first get upset about you casting a spell, even though it's all to make a Strike in the end. However, if you do pass the flat check, he'd give you a bonus on that Strike.
Likewise if your spellcasting ancestor was dominant, he'd maybe boost your spell, but then try to interfere with you making the Strike to deliver it.
(Don't take Eldritch Archer on a battle oracle, obviously. Not a happy combination.)
On the other hand, you can't lose part of an Activity without losing the entire Activity. So if the martial ancestor took exception to the spellcasting part of Eldritch Shot and caused the spellcasting to fail, then the entire Eldritch Shot would fail - which is probably not intended by either the ancestor or the game devs.
I run it the other way. If any subordinate action does qualify as a preferred action type, then the entire activity is acceptable. If all of the subordinate actions are irrelevant, then the entire activity is irrelevant. But if at least one of the subordinate actions is of a type of a different ancestor and none of the subordinate actions are of the preferred type of the current ancestor, then the ancestral meddling gets triggered.
|
|
3) What if one of the above actions has a Subordinate "Preferred Action" (Strike, Perception and Skill Actions, Cast a Spell)?The way the curse is worded, the ancestors get upset if you try to use an action that a rival ancestor prefers. Take Eldritch Shot as an example: you cast a spell and then make a strike. If your martial ancestor is dominant, he'd first get upset about you casting a spell, even though it's all to make a Strike in the end. However, if you do pass the flat check, he'd give you a bonus on that Strike.
Likewise if your spellcasting ancestor was dominant, he'd maybe boost your spell, but then try to interfere with you making the Strike to deliver it.
(Don't take Eldritch Archer on a battle oracle, obviously. Not a happy combination.)
You argue for "include" here (see title).
But I believe the wording of Subordinate Actions contradicts these claims you posit - I made that text bigger in the spoiler in the opening post:
This seems to evidence the case for "exclude".
Unless you think the "specific overrides general" rules clause (link?) comes into play? But if so, how?
I run it the other way. If any subordinate action does qualify as a preferred action type, then the entire activity is acceptable. If all of the subordinate actions are irrelevant, then the entire activity is irrelevant. But if at least one of the subordinate actions is of a type of a different ancestor and none of the subordinate actions are of the preferred type of the current ancestor, then the ancestral meddling gets triggered.
Maybe we could call this "selectively inclusive" for the purpose of parsing the rules here?
That, if an activity includes both a preferred action and a non-preferred action, the entire activity is deemed acceptable (no flat check) from the dominant ancestor.
|
|
If you rule that you can make strikes as part of an activity without the flat check, then those subordinate actions would not get any bonuses either.
You can't bypass the curse and still gain its benefits.
Agreed - the Curse either checks the Activity's Subordinate Actions (flat checks, status bonuses) and applies itself fully, or it doesn't.
But that doesn't answer the original question (see title).
Maybe it will be helpful to use a specific example:
LINK
A weapon made of pure magical force materializes and attacks foes you designate within range. This weapon has a ghostly appearance and manifests as a club, a dagger, or your deity's favored weapon.
When you cast the spell, the weapon appears next to a foe you choose within range and makes a Strike against it. Each time you Sustain the Spell, you can move the weapon to a new target within range (if needed) and Strike with it. The spiritual weapon uses and contributes to your multiple attack penalty.
The weapon's Strikes are melee spell attacks. Regardless of its appearance, the weapon deals force damage equal to 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. You can deal damage of the type normally dealt by the weapon instead of force damage (or any of the available damage types for a versatile weapon). No other statistics or traits of the weapon apply, and even a ranged weapon attacks adjacent creatures only. Despite making a spell attack, the spiritual weapon is a weapon for purposes of triggers, resistances, and so forth.
The weapon doesn't take up space, grant flanking, or have any other attributes a creature would. The weapon can't make any attack other than its Strike, and feats or spells that affect weapons do not apply to it.
Q1) If an oracle's Martial ancestors are active (at Moderate Curse), what happens when he sustains this spell?
Q2) If an oracle's Skillful ancestors are active (at Moderate Curse), what happens when he sustains this spell?
Q3) If an oracle's Spellcasting ancestors are active (at Moderate Curse), what happens when he sustains this spell?
Q4) How does this change, per ancestor, if at all, when he first casts this spell?
|
That was already answered. "When you try to use one of the types of actions listed for the other ancestors, you must succeed at a DC 4 flat check." Is it an action listed by another ancestor? If not, then there's no flat check. Sustain a spell isn't an action listed by another ancestor so it's exempt. You are also not Striking so you don't gain any bonuses from a Martial Ancestor, and the Spellcasting Ancestor only applies to instantaneous damage and healing spells.
So Sustaining a Spiritual Weapon won't trigger anything and gains no bonuses.
|
|
Spiritual Weapon doesn't even include any actions on the list as subordinate actions, so I'm not even sure why you brought it up.
I say it does, otherwise you could just use Double Slice (anyone can get this at level 2) and claim it doesn't count because the strikes are subordinate actions. That's a clear case of attempting to mitigate the curse which you explicitly can't do. You would make two flat checks, once for each Strike, and if you fail you lose that specific Strike.
breithauptclan is saying if at least one sub action is okay, then the whole thing is okay, which makes sense in the context of Eldritch Archer and Magus, but those are very niche. Your actions aren't being disrupted, just lost, so I would run it on a per sub action basis.
It would suck to lose your spell because your ancestor knocked the arrow into the air just as you shot it, but them's the breaks.
|
|
Well most battle oracles I've seen can use spiritual weapon strikes to suffice for their curse. So I think since you're striking then it would trigger non-martial's flat checks. The first turn you cast it, you would be casting a spell and striking so it would trigger non-martial and non-caster flat checks.
Essentially you shouldn't have spiritual weapon in your repertoire if you're an ancestors oracle.
Just like you probably shouldn't pick up the knockdown feat from mauler since it would trigger the flat check regardless of which ancestor you have up.
Spiritual Weapon is explicitly a Spell Attack, not a Strike. It's not relevant to this discussion.
Knockdown is very relevant though, and as I just mentioned I would have them make the flat check for the Skill check if the Martial Ancestor were in control.
|
|
Spiritual Weapon is explicitly a Spell Attack, not a Strike. It's not relevant to this discussion.Knockdown is very relevant though, and as I just mentioned I would have them make the flat check for the Skill check if the Martial Ancestor were in control.
The spell says you Strike with it. It even capitalizes the word Strike.
I would say it's a Strike that uses your melee spell attack
"When you cast the spell, the weapon appears next to a foe you choose within range and makes a Strike against it. Each time you Sustain the Spell, you can move the weapon to a new target within range (if needed) and Strike with it. The spiritual weapon uses and contributes to your multiple attack penalty.
The weapon's Strikes are melee spell attacks...
The weapon doesn't take up space, grant flanking, or have any other attributes a creature would. The weapon can't make any attack other than its Strike, and feats or spells that affect weapons do not apply to it.
The Weapon is making Strikes, you are making a Spell Attack.
If you were Striking with it it would use your melee attack modifier, rather than your spell attack modifier. It would pretty much suck if that were the case.
It also clarifies it's a Strike for the sake of reactions such as "An enemy Strikes you" or something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) What if one of the above actions has a Subordinate "Preferred Action" (Strike, Perception and Skill Actions, Cast a Spell)?The way the curse is worded, the ancestors get upset if you try to use an action that a rival ancestor prefers. Take Eldritch Shot as an example: you cast a spell and then make a strike. If your martial ancestor is dominant, he'd first get upset about you casting a spell, even though it's all to make a Strike in the end. However, if you do pass the flat check, he'd give you a bonus on that Strike.
Likewise if your spellcasting ancestor was dominant, he'd maybe boost your spell, but then try to interfere with you making the Strike to deliver it.
(Don't take Eldritch Archer on a battle oracle, obviously. Not a happy combination.)
You argue for "include" here (see title).
But I believe the wording of Subordinate Actions contradicts these claims you posit - I made that text bigger in the spoiler in the opening post: "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions"
This seems to evidence the case for "exclude".
Unless you think the "specific overrides general" rules clause (link?) comes into play? But if so, how?
This isn't about "specific overrides general". It's all about how the subordinate actions work. But I don't think you're understanding them correctly.
For an analogy, let's take a car. It has big tires. Those are subordinate parts of the car. The car isn't the same as the tires, but they're part of it. You can't have a complete car without tires; you can have a complete tire without a car.
If you have a coupon for a spare tire from your car dealership, you can get a tire with that. They're not going to give you a new car for it. That's the same as not being allowed to use the extra Strike from Haste to do say, a Double Slice.
However, if you drive over a nail mat with your car, your tires are still going to get punctured. And it's the same with activities: if something modifies an action and that action happens to be included in your activity, that's still going to happen. This is shown in the previous paragraph:
This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on.
If you took an activity that contained some actions that the ancestor objects to, they're still going to object to those actions. Whether that completely invalidates the whole activity will depend on the activity.
For example, if your spells ancestor was dominant and you used Double Slice, that's two Strikes. Two flat checks. Fail one and succeed once, then you're still making one of the Strikes. If you used Knockdown instead (Strike.. if you hit, try to trip) then if the ancestor foiled the first action, the second would become useless.
The last paragraph of the subordinate actions section includes some more examples, but those are all about timing issues: an action somewhere inside an activity isn't "the next action" you do, starting the activity is the next thing you do. That doesn't apply to this question, because the ancestors don't care about "next", they care about objectionable content whenever.
|
|
Let's gas your analogy.
So is the Strike part of Spiritual Weapon a tire?
There still seems to be disagreement about that amongst this thread's participants.
Spiritual Weapon is a bit of an ambiguous case, because of how it's phrased:
When you cast the spell, the weapon appears next to a foe you choose within range and makes a Strike against it. Each time you Sustain the Spell, you can move the weapon to a new target within range (if needed) and Strike with it. The spiritual weapon uses and contributes to your multiple attack penalty.
In the first sentence, it's the weapon making a Strike, apparently on its own. In the second sentence, you are moving the weapon and making a Strike with it. And the last sentence ties it fairly intimately to your MAP.
So are you making a Strike using the spiritual weapon, or are you just telling your minion to make a Strike on its own? You can read it both ways.
IF you read it the first way (you are making the Strike) then the combat ancestor is happy with it and the other two don't like it.
IF you read it the second way (it's not you making the Strike) then none of the ancestors care.
|
|
I've already clarified that you, the PC are not making a Strike with a Spiritual Weapon. Please stop ignoring the line stating that the Strikes are Melee Spell Attacks.
You Sustain the Spell.
The Weapon does the Strike.
The Strike is a Melee Spell Attack.
How is this YOU Striking in any way? Again, if it were YOU Striking, it would use your Melee attack bonus, which could very well be +0 if your deity was using a weapon you weren't proficient in. But that's obviously not what happens, you use your Spellcasting modifier.
Because it's a Spell Attack.
|
|
In arguing that the Strike part of Spiritual Weapon is not a "Strike" but is instead a "Spell Attack", it might follow that if this wasn't the case, then the Spellcasting Ancestors would intercede on other Spell Attacks as well, such as, for example, Divine Lance, which I think everyone here can agree upon is clearly not the case.
LINK
You unleash a beam of divine energy. Choose an alignment your deity has (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful). You can't cast this spell if you don't have a deity or if your deity is true neutral. Make a ranged spell attack roll against the target's AC. On a hit, the target takes damage of the chosen alignment type equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier (double damage on a critical hit). The spell gains the trait of the alignment you chose.
However, what remains notable to me, is that while the spell Spiritual Weapon explicitly uses the term Strike - even as it then goes on to explain that that Strike is a Spell Attack made by the weapon - that same terminology's omission from Divine Lance (which is only described as a Spell Attack) renders such logic suspect.
And the interaction with Multiple Attack Penalty seems to further compound this!
...
As for this thread, I have been sufficiently convinced that the answer to the title question is "include" (see title).
(That said, I also think the "selectively inclusive" concept is fairly within the spirit, if not the letter, of the curse)
But what remains for me is whether or not, relatedly, the Strike part of Spiritual Weapon is a Subordinate Action to it, or not.
|
|
In arguing that the Strike part of Spiritual Weapon is not a "Strike" but is instead a "Spell Attack", it might follow that if this wasn't the case, then the Spellcasting Ancestors would intercede on other Spell Attacks as well, such as, for example, Divine Lance, which I think everyone here can agree upon is clearly not the case.
However, what remains notable to me, is that while the spell Spiritual Weapon explicitly uses the term Strike - even as it then goes on to explain that that Strike is a Spell Attack made by the weapon - that same terminology's omission from Divine Lance (which is only described as a Spell Attack) renders such logic suspect.
And the interaction with Multiple Attack Penalty seems to further compound this!
When you use Divine Lance you are Casting a Spell, an action that is specifically called out by the Spellcasting Ancestor. It's also a spell with no duration that causes damage, which is another part that is specifically called out by the Spellcasting Ancestor. The only reason the Spellcasting Ancestor wouldn't give you a bonus is because it's a Cantrip, and you only get bonuses on "Non-cantrip spells without a duration". It doesn't matter if it's a Spell Attack or a Saving Throw, what matters is if you use the Cast a Spell activity, if it's a cantrip or not, and if it has a duration or not. Anything else is superfluous.
Basically, it makes no sense to compare Casting a Divine Lance to Sustaining a Spiritual Weapon.
|
|
I've already clarified that you, the PC are not making a Strike with a Spiritual Weapon. Please stop ignoring the line stating that the Strikes are Melee Spell Attacks.
You Sustain the Spell.
The Weapon does the Strike.
The Strike is a Melee Spell Attack.How is this YOU Striking in any way? Again, if it were YOU Striking, it would use your Melee attack bonus, which could very well be +0 if your deity was using a weapon you weren't proficient in. But that's obviously not what happens, you use your Spellcasting modifier.
Because it's a Spell Attack.
How is this YOU Striking in any way?Because that's what the spell says?
It is written as: "YOU move the weapon ... and Strike with it."
It is not written as: "You move the weapon ... and IT strikes"
Written without the move clause and the it pronoun the spell reads as: "Each time you Sustain the Spell, you can Strike with the spiritual weapon"
Again, if it were YOU Striking, it would use your Melee attack bonus, which could very well be +0 if your deity was using a weapon you weren't proficient in.Normally that would be the case. But in this instance it uses your spell attack because as you said, the Strike is a melee spell attack. It's still a Strike though. Saying that the Strike is a melee spell attack doesn't magically make it not a Strike.
Let's say there was a sign posted (or a curse) that says "NO DOGS ALLOWED" and you had a spell called "Spiritual Doggo"
And the spell says "Summon a magical dog next to you, this dog is a pet" You couldn't tell the angry groundskeeper, no it's not a dog, it's a pet.
(can't wait for the unchained book that adds Curse of the Angry Groundskeeper)
Look my dude, I have already explained why you're wrong. If you want to point at the one instance of "you" striking in the spell description while ignoring the 4 instances of the weapon striking, that's on you. Don't come crying when the majority of GMs tell you you're wrong.
Also, don't you think it would be kinda strange that the SPELLCASTING ancestor would try to interfere with you SPELL? Just saying...