"You scramble a creature's mental faculties and sensory input. The target must attempt a Will saving throw. Regardless of the result of that save, the target is then temporarily immune for 10 minutes. Warp mind's effects happen instantly, so dispel magic and other effects that counteract spells can't counteract them. However, alter reality, miracle, primal phenomenon, restoration, or wish can still counteract the effects.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target spends the first action on its next turn with the confused condition.
Failure The target is confused for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is confused permanently."
Warp Mind text strongly implies that the Confused condition it gives is not one you can remove with a mere slap. Still, it says nothing about overriding this way to recover: "Each time you take damage from an attack or spell, you can attempt a DC 11 flat check to recover from your confusion and end the condition."
I've houseruled that the Confused condition was coming back after one round, but this spell needs an errata in my opinion.
Since Confusion (the spell) has a critical failure effect that matches the failure effect of Warp Mind, I'd say that at those stages taking damage should have the DC 11 check to get out. I'd hope the condition had been directly written in reference the Confusion spell!
But yeah, that "confused permanently" seems too feeble if ended half the time when damaged, at least compared to crit fail effects of 7th level spells. Yet maybe it's not so feeble, a PC can wreak some serious damage and be near impossible to fix without that solution! Oy. And here I'm going to waffle by comparing it to Feeblemind where Failure's brutal and Critical Failure outright nullifies the PC until fixed. With Warp Mind 1 level higher, having that PC turn aggressive might be within expected norms. Party has to knock them out. *gulp*
That said, I think as presented Warp Mind's confusion can be ended by damage since there's no exception noted and the "permanent" is a bit of an overstatement.
My reading of it is:
Warp mind's effects happen instantly
is a reminder that the spell does not have a duration. So the effects of the spell do not automatically end when the spell ends - whether that is because of the duration expiring naturally, or because some other effect counteracted the spell and ended it earlier than normal.
So the confused condition that the spell applies has to specify its own duration. Which it does so based on the result of the save.
However, the confused condition also has its own method of removal. And nothing in the spell rule overrides that. The 'permanently' in the critical failure result is the listed duration. It simply means that the condition does not expire on its own - it does not mean that the condition cannot be removed by any means, including the means stated in the condition itself.
So I would say that yes, spending actions slapping your ally that failed or critically failed their save against Warp Mind hard enough to do damage will allow them the flat check to end the confused condition.
For balance analyses: The cost of attacking an ally (the actions taken, progressing MAP, and causing damage) would justify the flat check to remove the condition.
My reading of it is:
Warp mind's effects happen instantlyis a reminder that the spell does not have a duration. So the effects of the spell do not automatically end when the spell ends - whether that is because of the duration expiring naturally, or because some other effect counteracted the spell and ended it earlier than normal.
So the confused condition that the spell applies has to specify its own duration. Which it does so based on the result of the save.
However, the confused condition also has its own method of removal. And nothing in the spell rule overrides that. The 'permanently' in the critical failure result is the listed duration. It simply means that the condition does not expire on its own - it does not mean that the condition cannot be removed by any means, including the means stated in the condition itself.
So I would say that yes, spending actions slapping your ally that failed or critically failed their save against Warp Mind hard enough to do damage will allow them the flat check to end the confused condition.
For balance analyses: The cost of attacking an ally (the actions taken, progressing MAP, and causing damage) would justify the flat check to remove the condition.
Eh... For balance, a 7th level spell being just as easy to remove as a 4th level doesn't sit right. That reading also means there's no practical difference between the failure and critical failure conditions, because a creature will probably be dead or knocked out of the confusion well before 10 rounds expire.
Also... It is pretty obvious that this is meant to be the equivalent of PF1'S Insanity spell, which didn't have any easy outs like this. And specifying that a spell needs a wish or miracle spell to cure when a simple slap would suffice is mighty suspect.
Also worth pointing out that I'm pretty sure the Confused condition got changed between the playtest and final CRB release. In the playtest IIRC it was basically just PF1 confusion-- no slapping out. So I think any way to end the critical failure with a slap, regardless of RAW, isn't intended. RAI it pretty clearly isn't meant to be that simple.
Edit: Now, I will say allowing the slap out of the regular failure seems more reasonable and within PF1 design constraint. But not the critical failure.
Also... It is pretty obvious that this is meant to be the equivalent of PF1'S Insanity spell, which didn't have any easy outs like this. And specifying that a spell needs a wish or miracle spell to cure when a simple slap would suffice is mighty suspect.
Yeah, that's a fair point.
But I'm not sure how else to read that spell description. Ignoring RAW in favor of RAI isn't reliable. Too much table variation.
I think the key here is the word permanently in the critical failure entry. It doesn't say for an unlimited duration, until broken out of, etc. IMO there's something a bit more, well... permanent, about the word permanently that overrides the typical way of getting rid of the confused condition.
That being said, I'd be veeeeery careful coming to that conclusion through comparing the spell to a pf1 alternative as opposed to an analysis of pf2 rules or balance directly. The power level of save or get F'ed spells are vastly different between the two systems.
Also, mentioning that a wish or miracle spell can counteract it is a bit of a red herring when it also says that restoration, a much more common spell, can also be used to try and counteract it (it's still going to be costly to get the counteract level high enough if you don't have a caster who can freely cast one of the named spells, but definitely more doable).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, mentioning that a wish or miracle spell can counteract it is a bit of a red herring when it also says that restoration, a much more common spell, can also be used to try and counteract it (it's still going to be costly to get the counteract level high enough if you don't have a caster who can freely cast one of the named spells, but definitely more doable).
But Restoration does nothing anyway, as it doesn't affect Confused condition. In my opinion, it's a mistake, as if the spell had been written with PF1 rules still in mind and never edited when both Confused and Restoration have been modified.
That's fair, but the slap out of crit failure reading breaks PF2 design too. And given that the condition in question was overhauled between the playtest and PF2, and the spell changed names between editions for political sensitivity reasons... The most obvious explanation is that this spell has some oversights and isn't working as intended. Much like the Restoration thing, as Superbidi points out. (That I'm not sure how rule on.)
Also... It is pretty obvious that this is meant to be the equivalent of PF1'S Insanity spell, which didn't have any easy outs like this. And specifying that a spell needs a wish or miracle spell to cure when a simple slap would suffice is mighty suspect.Yeah, that's a fair point.
But I'm not sure how else to read that spell description. Ignoring RAW in favor of RAI isn't reliable. Too much table variation.
I don't understand this point of reluctance. Yes, RAI will vary from table to table, but so does confusing RAW. But why would you not rely on RAI at your own table because it might be different at another?
Also, mentioning that a wish or miracle spell can counteract it is a bit of a red herring when it also says that restoration, a much more common spell, can also be used to try and counteract it (it's still going to be costly to get the counteract level high enough if you don't have a caster who can freely cast one of the named spells, but definitely more doable).But Restoration does nothing anyway, as it doesn't affect Confused condition. In my opinion, it's a mistake, as if the spell had been written with PF1 rules still in mind and never edited when both Confused and Restoration have been modified.
A fair interpretation, and perhaps true, but I don't think there's a need to assume that it's an error.
Personally I read it as a case of specific beats general saying that restoration has an affect on specifically this spell. Not confused in general, as restoration doesn't do that, but specifically this spell because, well, the spell says that it does.
That's fair, but the slap out of crit failure reading breaks PF2 design too.
Agreed. I just think it's important to get to that conclusion the right way, since it's a not-uncommon pitfall that I've seen a few times before to assume something in pf2 should work similarly to its pf1 counterpart.
But yeah, to your point the crit fail on a level 7 single target incapacitation spell should probably be pretty impactful regardless of the system.
I don't understand this point of reluctance. Yes, RAI will vary from table to table, but so does confusing RAW. But why would you not rely on RAI at your own table because it might be different at another?
Oh, I do run with RAI at my table. Because all of us players negotiate and agree on what RAI is. On all of the various confusing or ambiguous RAW in the rulebooks.
What isn't going to be reliable is taking that expectation of our negotiated RAI to different groups and different tables.
So basically my thoughts that "Ignoring RAW in favor of RAI isn't reliable. Too much table variation." is meant more for the rules forum itself rather than for any individual table.
What you pointed out makes sense. And I will probably adjust my thinking on this particular spell (it hasn't actually come up in games that I have been in). But I don't think that means that we can disregard the idea that the likely correct RAI interpretation doesn't really follow the most obvious RAW reading.
I think it's perfectly acceptable within the Rules Forum to highlight the ambiguity of rules. Where else, right?
"I rule X, though Y & Z interpretations are also (unfortunately) valid given the phrasing and PF2's premises." is sometimes as good as one can do, especially since one of PF'2 guidelines is to not fret over legalism.