| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am applying both rules. Auditory says that the target has to hear the effect in order to be affected by sound-based parts of the spell. Sonic says that damage is specifically excluded from that. They still take sonic damage even if they don't hear it.
No sonic does not say that.
That is upside down and not well expressed. The caster being deaf might cause a spell failure chance but won't stop a spell being cast. Invisible doesn't help the target especially.
So if you are invisible and they are deaf, they couldn't use the sound of Haunting Hymn to detect that you are there. But they would still take the damage.
Huh??? Who said anything about the caster being deaf? Or the target being invisible?
If you (the caster) are invisible and they (the target) are deaf, they (the target) couldn't use the sound (sound-based effect) of Haunting Hymn to detect that you (the caster) are there. But they (the target) would still take the sonic damage.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I write?
If the target is deaf it is immune.
Read the positive statements.
A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it.
An effect with the sonic trait functions only if it makes sound.
Neither of these statements conflict. Both are simple requirements that must be met. You are just confusing yourself with incorrectly framed boolean logic.
You forgot one of positive statements in that first Auditory trait quote.
This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can't hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound.
There is nothing in the Sonic trait that says that the Sonic damage has to be heard. In fact it says exactly the opposite. The target still takes damage even if they can't hear the effect.
And there is nothing in the Auditory trait that prevents Sonic damage, just 'sound-based' effects. It instead quite clearly states that having the Auditory trait does not prevent sonic damage when the target cannot hear the effect.
Yes, Haunting Hymn has to make sound in order to have effect. It won't work in an area of magical silence. No, the target does not have to be able to hear the effect in order to take the Sonic damage.
That is upside down and not well expressed. The caster being deaf might cause a spell failure chance but won't stop a spell being cast. Invisible doesn't help the target especially.
So if you are invisible and they are deaf, they couldn't use the sound of Haunting Hymn to detect that you are there. But they would still take the damage.
Huh??? Who said anything about the caster being deaf? Or the target being invisible?
If you (the caster) are invisible and they (the target) are deaf, they (the target) couldn't use the sound (sound-based effect) of Haunting Hymn to detect that you (the caster) are there. But they (the target) would still take the sonic damage.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I write?
No that is literally what you wrote. But if that is just poor communication then let we should just let it drop. Because you are reading the pronouns differently in that sentence to what I do.
Yes, Haunting Hymn has to make sound in order to have effect. It won't work in an area of magical silence.
True.
No, the target does not have to be able to hear the effect in order to take the Sonic damage.
True generally, but clearly False in this case.
Nothing about the spell or Sonic negates the Auditory trait which says A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it.
Both traits are active. Sonic does not overwrite Auditory they coexist happily.
At the very least, the auditory says the GM gets to pick what works and what doesn't.
Nothing about the spell or Sonic negates the Auditory trait which says A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it.
Correct. Nothing about the spell or the Sonic trait is conflicting with the Auditory trait. It is the Auditory trait itself that says that the sonic damage still takes effect.
This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can't hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound.
So both traits are active and Auditory does not overwrite Sonic. They coexist happily.
That's not what that says though. It just says that auditory effects are different than sonic effects... nothing on how a spell that's both is meant to function.
Though it does imply that it's an editing error to have both traits on one spell.
That's not what that says though. It just says that auditory effects are different than sonic effects... nothing on how a spell that's both is meant to function.
Though it does imply that it's an editing error to have both traits on one spell.
No you are just reading it wrong. In a boolean logic sense you are assuming something that is not said. The statements in Sonic and Auditory about each other are negative statements that apply in the absence of the second trait. They are not extra properties of the opposite trait. They are descriptions of it.
This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can't hear it
This is not an extra property of sonic, it is a correct partial description of sonic in the absence of auditory and does not override the properties of auditory. It is merely highlighting differences.
This is different from an auditory spell, which is effective only if the target can hear it.
This is not an extra property of auditory , it is a correct partial description of auditory in the absence of sonic and does not override the properties of sonic. It is merely highlighting differences.
Neither of these quotes apply in a situation where an effect is both sonic and auditory.
It is absolutely valid for something to be both sonic and auditory
It has to make a sound, and it has to be heard. Maybe it is something to do with the inner ear?
Disagree. Sonic and Auditory are primarily defined by the things that make them different.
There's no way to parse something that's both simultaneously in a consistent way because the two abilities function in contradictory ways. Both effects indicate the ability is sound based, but the sonic trait exists specifically to say that the spell doesn't require the target to hear it while the auditory trait exists specifically to say that the target does.
Disagree. Sonic and Auditory are primarily defined by the things that make them different.
Just false. They both have a positive statement of them first.
Both effects indicate the ability is sound based, but the sonic trait exists specifically to say that the spell doesn't require the target to hear it while the auditory trait exists specifically to say that the target does.
This is where you are going wrong sonic trait exists specifically to say that the effect must make a sound.
Anyway I'm going to leave it here.
I've yet to see daze taken or cast without regret.Hi, here I am. I am fine with daze. It's a non-lethal spell and it has it's moments.
I've seen Daze used as well. I've seen it in APs, but it strikes me as really useful in a sandbox homebrew game where not everything scales to your level. Being able to gently render a commoner 8 levels below you unconscious without committing murder
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did somebody try puff of poison?
Opinions?
On the plus side they take damage on a successful save! So if you really just want to do one point of damage they are fine.
On the negative side range 5 feet is melee range and the damage is just too low. Poison is fairly commonly resisted.
I am not a fan of persistent damage because its it too easy to get rid of, and most enemies die in 1 or two rounds versus the PCs that I play with. It just doesn't do much.
So its never going to be your main cantrip attack but maybe its an option.
On top of that, considering 5 cantrips the character may choose ( on arcane/primal tradition ), I am not sure I'll ever have a spot for it.
Unless, maybe, with a secondary basic caster dedication which may give me detect magic + read aura by default.
Well, cantrips go on staves so if you make a Poison staff it's fit fine.
|
Some monsters have abilities that do bad stuff to enemies (the PCs..) as long as they're suffering from persistent damage. If there were PC abilities then that might make for a real combo with puff of poison.
As is though, I think Paizo values persistent damage too highly for use by PCs. Focus fire to quickly reduce the number of enemies getting turns is just so much better.
Some monsters have abilities that do bad stuff to enemies (the PCs..) as long as they're suffering from persistent damage. If there were PC abilities then that might make for a real combo with puff of poison.
As is though, I think Paizo values persistent damage too highly for use by PCs. Focus fire to quickly reduce the number of enemies getting turns is just so much better.
It is worth noting that persistent damage (if it happens to be the correct damage type) is very useful against enemies with regeneration - it means you only have to land one spell or attack to shut down a troll from regenerating for multiple turns.
Some monsters have abilities that do bad stuff to enemies (the PCs..) as long as they're suffering from persistent damage. If there were PC abilities then that might make for a real combo with puff of poison.
As is though, I think Paizo values persistent damage too highly for use by PCs. Focus fire to quickly reduce the number of enemies getting turns is just so much better.
I think Paizo's pretty generous w/ Bleeding damage, but yeah, the others, when slapped on a target with Weakness, are BRUTAL. My group in the playtest made it through the impossible chapter via lucky application of persistent damage. Several above-level brutes lost half their h.p. to one application they simply couldn't shake off. Main BBEG died right after the last of the PCs went down (w/ only one dying, the rest stabilized).
"That's 1 Good damage + 15 more for the Weakness"I doubt anything has a Weakness to poison, quite the contrary w/ so many types (not simply individual creatures) resistant or immune. That's likely why they allowed it on a Cantrip, but its feebleness might also why it's been allowed to work on the target's Success.
For myself, I have a concept I like for a gang of Goblins enemies that use Puff of Poison. :)
And it could also be said Paizo values energy damage rather highly, at least when it comes to martials. Look how feeble the Monk Stances are that do energy damage. Cool visuals, sure, but a big hit to damage output.