The Determination feat can remove a "nonpermanent condition" automatically. It can only be used once per day.
There are some conditions that are obviously not permanent, like frightened or some conditions that have a set endpoint, like a monster ability that makes you "Stupefied 1 for 1 minute."
But what about the Drained condition that does not have a duration? It is arguably permanent, but it also goes away with a full night's rest? Same for Doomed.
I did a search on Archives of Nethys and am finding no definition for "nonpermanent."
Thanks in advance.
Basically anything that can't be removed by any means isn't able to be removed with Determination. Things like the Clumsy 1 from a Giant Instinct Barbarian or the Enfeebled 2 from wielding a Holy weapon as an Evil character, and so on, would be things you couldn't remove with Determination.
Anything that goes away on its own over any time period wouldn't be considered permanent.
Anything that goes away on its own over any time period wouldn't be considered permanent.
So something like Petrified would be considered a permanent condition since there is no way other than magic or other active abilities to remove it.
Non-permanent conditions are ones that would eventually go away (if they don't kill you) on their own.
Anything that goes away on its own over any time period wouldn't be considered permanent.So something like Petrified would be considered a permanent condition since there is no way other than magic or other active abilities to remove it.
Non-permanent conditions are ones that would eventually go away (if they don't kill you) on their own.
Hmmm....unclear. Though since petrified denies your ability to take actions and fighter's determination requires spending actions I think you couldn't use it anyways, so it doesn't matter.
Hmmm....unclear. Though since petrified denies your ability to take actions and fighter's determination requires spending actions I think you couldn't use it anyways, so it doesn't matter.Anything that goes away on its own over any time period wouldn't be considered permanent.So something like Petrified would be considered a permanent condition since there is no way other than magic or other active abilities to remove it.
Non-permanent conditions are ones that would eventually go away (if they don't kill you) on their own.
If that doesn't count as a non-permanent condition, then I don't think anything does. If your definition is 'a condition that there is no possible way of ever removing', then even Dead doesn't count.
ETA: And yes, I am aware that Dead isn't actually a condition.
I'm saying "I don't know, but here is a reason it doesn't matter".
For my home table, I would probably also rule it's a permanent condition but I'm not sure anything in the rules text makes it obviously such other than making some logical assumptions.
But if asked to prove it all I have to go on is the fact that it doesn't have a duration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if asked to prove it all I have to go on is the fact that it doesn't have a duration.
Indeed.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem again. In any system where axioms are used to derive additional statements, not every statement that is true can be proven.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sunburst mentions that targets gets blinded permanently.
Sunburst mentions that targets gets blinded permanently.
Which is what leads me to conclude that I cannot prove that petrified is a permanent condition, but I logically I would still conclude that it is such.
|
Are we talking about instantaneous petrification (which could not be prevented with this feat) or are we talking about a condition that slowly turns the creature to stone (in which case the feat would apply but ONLY before they've been turned into an object since only creatures can have a condition)?
Are we talking about instantaneous petrification (which could not be prevented with this feat) or are we talking about a condition that slowly turns the creature to stone (in which case the feat would apply but ONLY before they've been turned into an object since only creatures can have a condition)?
Really we are just using Petrified as an example condition. What we are really trying to do is determine how permanent a condition has to be in order to be considered 'permanent'.
Frightened is obviously not permanent because it goes away on its own rather quickly. No intervention by the creature or its allies needed.
Petrified is probably permanent because without some intervention by someone, once you are petrified you stay that way. So if that isn't permanent, what is?
Blinded when caused by Sunburst is permanent because it says so - though I expect that it is not permanent in a literal sense because there are ways to remove the condition.
The exploit that is being pointed out is that there is no actual definition for what determines if a condition is 'permanent' or 'nonpermanent' and so if it is ruled that any condition that has some means of being removed must therefore be nonpermanent, then Determination can remove anything - as long as you are still able to act at all. And that is probably not intended. But where and how do we draw the line to determine what is or is not a 'nonpermanent' condition?
Where does one draw that line?
But where and how do we draw the line to determine what is or is not a 'nonpermanent' condition?
Is there any reason why you don't think the duration of the condition is suitable? it seems like you're discarding the idea out of hand and I'm not sure why.
But where and how do we draw the line to determine what is or is not a 'nonpermanent' condition?Is there any reason why you don't think the duration of the condition is suitable? it seems like you're discarding the idea out of hand and I'm not sure why.
Because I am not seeing it. Most, if not all, of the conditions don't actually list a duration in the rule for the condition itself. Many will tick down automatically either at the end of each round or at the end of each day. But the ones that don't tick down don't have any other information about when the condition ends. Like egindar says, if the ability that applies the condition specifies the duration then that is great. But what about abilities that don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I am not seeing it. Most, if not all, of the conditions don't actually list a duration in the rule for the condition itself. Many will tick down automatically either at the end of each round or at the end of each day. But the ones that don't tick down don't have any other information about when the condition ends. Like egindar says, if the ability that applies the condition specifies the duration then that is great. But what about abilities that don't.But where and how do we draw the line to determine what is or is not a 'nonpermanent' condition?Is there any reason why you don't think the duration of the condition is suitable? it seems like you're discarding the idea out of hand and I'm not sure why.
I don't think abilities like that are supposed to exist. There's a few monsters where it snuck through but those are errors.
There are also afflictions that apply conditions. And since afflictions mention that they can give out conditions that last longer than the affliction, does that mean that the condition becomes permanent if the condition itself doesn't list a way to remove it?
Probably not. That would be a too bad to be true ruling. My point isn't to try and argue for bizarre things that would break the game. What I am actually doing is reaffirming Godel's Incompleteness theorem. The rules don't (because they can't) cover every last possibility.
So for Fighter's Determination, the GM may at some point have to use some adjudication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are also afflictions that apply conditions. And since afflictions mention that they can give out conditions that last longer than the affliction, does that mean that the condition becomes permanent if the condition itself doesn't list a way to remove it?
Probably not. That would be a too bad to be true ruling. My point isn't to try and argue for bizarre things that would break the game. What I am actually doing is reaffirming Godel's Incompleteness theorem. The rules don't (because they can't) cover every last possibility.
So for Fighter's Determination, the GM may at some point have to use some adjudication.
Sure, but I think the general rule of "conditions either have general rules for expiring or are tied to durations listed in the specific abilities" is a pretty easy thing to understand RAI and shouldn't require much table variance. The only conditions Determination can't remove will usually say they are permanent. Or permanent until a certain condition is met, like needing to remove a curse before you atupified can be removed.