As far as I can tell, if you critically fail the check for Exploit Vulnerability, you can still consider that creature to be the target of Exploit Vulnerability. So you couldn't use Mortal Weakness or Personal Antithesis, but you could still use Implement reactions that only work on the target of Exploit Vulnerability such as Weapon, Bell, or Amulet.
Which seems a bit strange, but I can't find a rules argument against it. Just because you botch the roll doesn't mean that the creature wasn't targeted.
Thoughts?
|
I think the requirement line throws a monkey wrench in this:
Requirements You're holding your amulet implement and are benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability.
You're not benefitting at all from Exploit Vulnerability if you Critically Fail, you're being punished/debuffed by it. To benefit means to take/receive an advantage from something and becoming Flat-Footed is surely not in any way a benefit.
Bell doesn't have that, and it seems really strange that different implements would behave differently.
Also, define 'benefiting' using game terms. If the implement's actions work, then that is a benefit to Exploit Vulnerability. Even if you crit fail the roll and are flat-footed for one round.
Bell doesn't have that, and it seems really strange that different implements would behave differently.
What would be a really strange ruling is that a Thaumaturge that has both Bell and Weapon implements. If they critically fail the Exploit Vulnerability roll they would still benefit from it due to the Bell reaction being available, and that would allow the Weapon implement's reaction to work.
But a Thaumaturge with a different implement than Bell, such as Regalia and Weapon implements, would gain no tangible bonuses from critical failure of Exploit Vulnerability and so the Weapon implement's reaction wouldn't work.
Having the behavior of Weapon Implement dependent on which other implements you have chosen is not good design or ruling.
|
|
Hmm that is indeed a bit odd, not exactly too unexpected as inconsistent wording is par for the course so I'd run with it working fine for Bell.
Since the term benefiting isn't mechanically defined we have to rely on the "natural language" use and meaning of the word which means to benefit or take advantage from and I can't even think of one circumstance where having the Flat-Footed Condition would be seen as an advantage. Your argument that you are benefitting from it with a Crit Fail is akin to saying that when they use the word "drink" in a rule they ALSO intent to also say "eat" because the rules don't say that it DOESN'T mean to eat, it's silly and is counter to the normal expected meaning and definition of how that word is used "naturally."
Regarding the meaning of 'benefiting', it seems to be causing circular logic in either ruling.
If you don't allow the implement's actions, then you don't benefit from the critical failure at all, so therefore you don't allow the implement's actions.
But if you do allow the implement's actions, then you do benefit from the critical failure outcome, so therefore you do allow the implement's actions.
Which is why we need some way of determining if we are benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability that is external to the Thaumaturge class. That is the only way to resolve the circular logic - external validation of one of the statements.