Fire Gate-Aura Junction: Enemies in your kinetic aura gain weakness to fire from your fire impulses. The weakness is equal to half your level (minimum weakness 1).
Kindle Inner Flame (KIF): As a candle can light another, you awaken the latent potential to channel fire in other creatures. You shed faint, glowing embers, as do your allies while they're in your kinetic aura. Anyone shedding these embers gains a +1 status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks and can Step as a free action once per round. When an affected creature takes a move action, its Strikes deal an extra 2 fire damage until the end of its turn.
Does passively generated damage trigger the aura's weakness?
I'm already seeing people on Reddit adopting the assumption that the fire damage from ally strikes benefiting from KIF will trigger the Aura Junction weakness to impulse generated fire. I understand the reasoning "the impulse initiated the fire damage, therefore it triggers the weakness aura", but that is counter to the strike being the cause of any damage. The level 12 heightened effect even removes the bonus fire, and grants the flaming rune instead. Would that still be "impulse generated damage", or is that a bog-standard flaming rune? Does/should any of that ally strike generated bonus fire damage trigger the aura's weakness to your impulses?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Personally I would say no.
KIF doesn't deal damage. It gives a buff to allies. And the buff is adding damage.
I'd say that's 1 degree too far.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The source of the damage is from an impulse even if it's riding on a strike. It should apply
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, there you have it. Both answers are correct.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Farien wrote: Well, there you have it. Both answers are correct. Some cats just want to see the world burn...
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote: Farien wrote: Well, there you have it. Both answers are correct. Some cats just want to see the world burn... LOL. I agree with aobst128.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well probably no.
This extra damage comes from impulse magical effect but the Strike isn't an Impulse and don't inherit such trait. IMO is too indirect to consider it as been a trait effect. Also this could end being very OP once you could give everyone an Impulse fire damage benefiting from fire aura. Imagine the entire party receiving the weakness benefit from every attack.
So I will use the 2 cards:
That the Strike don't have and don't get the Impulse trait.
That's too good to be true (in general this rule is more to, if there's two ways to apply a rule, use the worse).
I figured that's kinda the point. Fire specializes in damage. Great for bosses while thermal nimbus is great for mooks. If you've got an uncommon amount of melee martials with you like 3, yeah it performs well but then you've probably got other issues if your party looks like that.
I just had a funny thought though. A thaumaturge that succeeds their exploit vulnerability on a creature within a pyrokinetisists aura with the fire aura junction would learn of that weakness and be able to apply it themselves.
aobst128 wrote: I just had a funny thought though. A thaumaturge that succeeds their exploit vulnerability on a creature within a pyrokinetisists aura with the fire aura junction would learn of that weakness and be able to apply it themselves. Yes. Which makes the Witch Hex Elemental Betrayal even more strange. It gives the equivalent of an energy weakness, but without actually calling it that.
So a Thaumaturge couldn't exploit the Elemental Betrayal weakness because it isn't a weakness, but the extra damage would stack with the Kineticist Fire Junction weakness.
Yeah that spell is goofy. Could be fun on a dedicated pyrokinetisist that also picks up cackle. You could trigger it up to 4 times a round with a bit of prep through thermal nimbus, molten wire, blasts, and incendiary aura if you pick that up too.
YuriP wrote: Well probably no.
This extra damage comes from impulse magical effect but the Strike isn't an Impulse and don't inherit such trait. IMO is too indirect to consider it as been a trait effect. Also this could end being very OP once you could give everyone an Impulse fire damage benefiting from fire aura. Imagine the entire party receiving the weakness benefit from every attack.
So I will use the 2 cards:
That the Strike don't have and don't get the Impulse trait.
That's too good to be true (in general this rule is more to, if there's two ways to apply a rule, use the worse).
Agree.
This is the general principle. It needs to be explicit if it is going to inherit.
Gortle wrote:
Agree.
This is the general principle. It needs to be explicit if it is going to inherit.
That would be my initial stance as well, but a LOT of people seem to want it to apply. Unfortunately designers can't anticipate every way we attempt to use language/mechanics.
If it catches fire (pun intended), I suspect this may become another Focus Pool disagreement.
Well it may be they will change the rules in the remaster.
For now though Impulse is a tagged trait and the subordinate action rule: action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified is what is telling us that trait inheritance has to be specific.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Now I noticie this is a specific rule of Subordinated action about a larger action (usually an activity) giving traits to a smaller one.
But this is not the case. Strike isn't a subordinated action of Kindle Inner Flame also Kindle Inner Flame is explicitly giving an extra/additional damage conditioned to the Strike action. The Strike action itself isn't even modified just the impulse that giving it some extra damage. Maybe have some sense that this effect is "from your fire impulses" and activate the weakness.
Gortle wrote: Well it may be they will change the rules in the remaster. I hope that remaster clarifies the addition/extra damage interactions with the attack, saves, damage formula, weakness, resistances and immunities.
YuriP wrote: Now I noticie this is a specific rule of Subordinated action about a larger action (usually an activity) giving traits to a smaller one.
But this is not the case. Strike isn't a subordinated action of Kindle Inner Flame also Kindle Inner Flame is explicitly giving an extra/additional damage conditioned to the Strike action. The Strike action itself isn't even modified just the impulse that giving it some extra damage. Maybe have some sense that this effect is "from your fire impulses" and activate the weakness.
I know. Kindle Inner Flame is a much looser connection. The point is it needs to be explicitly included or it is not included, that is the general principle in PF2. Subbordinate actions is just the closest actual rule here.
YuriP wrote: Gortle wrote: Well it may be they will change the rules in the remaster. I hope that remaster clarifies the addition/extra damage interactions with the attack, saves, damage formula, weakness, resistances and immunities. Yep. I hope so. I am not hugely optimistic on this but let's wait and see. Paizo have done some very good work but they have a few blind spots.
YuriP wrote: Well probably no.
That's too good to be true (in general this rule is more to, if there's two ways to apply a rule, use the worse).
I dont know if its necessarily too good to be true. Its an aura and therefor competes with Thermal nimbus which is guaranteed damage. So in cases of many enemies and Shape Aura, which is not far off from kindle inner flames, it might be worse, since nimbus is guaranteed damage.
Candlejake wrote: Its an aura and therefor competes with Thermal nimbus Maybe I am missing something. But I am not seeing anything that says that you can't have two effects active for your Kinetic Aura.
Now, Thermal Nimbus is a Stance, and that would conflict with other Stance actions and abilities. You can only have one Stance active at a time. But a Kinetic Junction to the Aura is not a Stance.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
breithauptclan wrote: Candlejake wrote: Its an aura and therefor competes with Thermal nimbus Maybe I am missing something. But I am not seeing anything that says that you can't have two effects active for your Kinetic Aura.
Now, Thermal Nimbus is a Stance, and that would conflict with other Stance actions and abilities. You can only have one Stance active at a time. But a Kinetic Junction to the Aura is not a Stance. They're saying kindle inner flames competes with thermal nimbus since they're both stances
breithauptclan wrote: Candlejake wrote: Its an aura and therefor competes with Thermal nimbus Maybe I am missing something. But I am not seeing anything that says that you can't have two effects active for your Kinetic Aura.
Now, Thermal Nimbus is a Stance, and that would conflict with other Stance actions and abilities. You can only have one Stance active at a time. But a Kinetic Junction to the Aura is not a Stance. As the other poster said, i misstyped. Both are stances, cant have two stances up at the same time. Most things that affect the aura like that are stances
Yeah, no worries. Kineticist is new to me too. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Can you have 2 separate auras going at once? Someone mentioned using incendiary aura, can you have that and your kinetic aura up at the same time?
It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work.
Deriven Firelion wrote: It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work. That can be flipped around:
"is the impulse doing damage without the PC Striking? The answer is no, ergo it's the Strike that does the damage and not the impulse."
For me it's a similar question as "does Runic Weapon deal damage/get buffed by damage buffs?" And I would answer no, Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it wouldn't get affected by stuff that give bonus to damage for the caster, it's just a buff to a weapon.
shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work. That can be flipped around:
"is the impulse doing damage without the PC Striking? The answer is no, ergo it's the Strike that does the damage and not the impulse."
For me it's a similar question as "does Runic Weapon deal damage/get buffed by damage buffs?" And I would answer no, Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it wouldn't get affected by stuff that give bonus to damage for the caster, it's just a buff to a weapon. No. It can't be flipped around. The weapon could strike and hit and the fire damage would not occur without the impulse. A hit roll or save is common for any damage dealing effect. One of the effects of the impulse is to cause weapons to do fire damage.
The runic weapon doesn't gain a bonus because it is a duration. Fortunately, Dangerous Sorcery was written so that it did not buff spells with a duration or that would have been very powerful. Runic Weapon does get specialization and runes and things that apply to weapons.
A direct reading of the rules would indicate the impulse does the damage and thus gets the bonus. There is no qualifier for duration or any other factor. As long as it has the impulse tag and does fire damage, the weakness applies.
Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work. That can be flipped around:
"is the impulse doing damage without the PC Striking? The answer is no, ergo it's the Strike that does the damage and not the impulse."
For me it's a similar question as "does Runic Weapon deal damage/get buffed by damage buffs?" And I would answer no, Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it wouldn't get affected by stuff that give bonus to damage for the caster, it's just a buff to a weapon. No. It can't be flipped around. The weapon could strike and hit and the fire damage would not occur without the impulse. A hit roll or save is common for any damage dealing effect. One of the effects of the impulse is to cause weapons to do fire damage.
The runic weapon doesn't gain a bonus because it is a duration. Fortunately, Dangerous Sorcery was written so that it did not buff spells with a duration or that would have been very powerful. Runic Weapon does get specialization and runes and things that apply to weapons.
A direct reading of the rules would indicate the impulse does the damage and thus gets the bonus. There is no qualifier for duration or any other factor. As long as it has the impulse tag and does fire damage, the weakness applies. Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
So this question of yours prove absolutely nothing.
Imo the raw is clear, albeit the rai less so:
The strike doesn't have the impulse trait, so it doesn't benefit from stuff proccing from impulses.
It's just a weapon buff no different than someone using Runic Weapon or similar stuff.
But can you have incendiary aura and your kinetic aura both up? Your fire impulses should work with it
Riddlyn wrote: But can you have incendiary aura and your kinetic aura both up? Your fire impulses should work with it Yes. But Incendiary aura is not an impulse, so weakness from junction won't work and persistent damage won't stack, there'd be only one instance.
shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work. That can be flipped around:
"is the impulse doing damage without the PC Striking? The answer is no, ergo it's the Strike that does the damage and not the impulse."
For me it's a similar question as "does Runic Weapon deal damage/get buffed by damage buffs?" And I would answer no, Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it wouldn't get affected by stuff that give bonus to damage for the caster, it's just a buff to a weapon. No. It can't be flipped around. The weapon could strike and hit and the fire damage would not occur without the impulse. A hit roll or save is common for any damage dealing effect. One of the effects of the impulse is to cause weapons to do fire damage.
The runic weapon doesn't gain a bonus because it is a duration. Fortunately, Dangerous Sorcery was written so that it did not buff spells with a duration or that would have been very powerful. Runic Weapon does get specialization and runes and things that apply to weapons.
A direct reading of the rules would indicate the impulse does the damage and thus gets the bonus. There is no qualifier for duration or any other factor. As long as it has the impulse tag and does fire damage, the weakness applies. Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
So this question of yours prove absolutely nothing.
Imo the raw is clear, albeit the rai less so:
The strike doesn't have the impulse trait, so it doesn't benefit from stuff proccing from impulses.
It's just a weapon buff no different than someone using Runic Weapon or similar stuff. No, it isn't. Read the ability.
Kindle Inner Fire is a stance. Which means you can't share it with another stance. It is not a weapon buff with a duration.
It requires a move action be used prior to gaining the benefit.
It only occurs within the Kinetic Aura.
The extra damage only lasts until the end of the players turn. So does not occur on reaction attacks unless they occur within the player's turn.
Which is why I believe with the limitations, it's fine and intentional that the weakness to fire be added. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work. That can be flipped around:
"is the impulse doing damage without the PC Striking? The answer is no, ergo it's the Strike that does the damage and not the impulse."
For me it's a similar question as "does Runic Weapon deal damage/get buffed by damage buffs?" And I would answer no, Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it wouldn't get affected by stuff that give bonus to damage for the caster, it's just a buff to a weapon. No. It can't be flipped around. The weapon could strike and hit and the fire damage would not occur without the impulse. A hit roll or save is common for any damage dealing effect. One of the effects of the impulse is to cause weapons to do fire damage.
The runic weapon doesn't gain a bonus because it is a duration. Fortunately, Dangerous Sorcery was written so that it did not buff spells with a duration or that would have been very powerful. Runic Weapon does get specialization and runes and things that apply to weapons.
A direct reading of the rules would indicate the impulse does the damage and thus gets the bonus. There is no qualifier for duration or any other factor. As long as it has the impulse tag and does fire damage, the weakness applies. Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
So this question of yours prove absolutely nothing.
Imo the raw is clear, albeit the rai less so:
The strike doesn't have the impulse trait, so it doesn't benefit from stuff proccing from impulses.
It's just a weapon buff no different than someone using Runic Weapon or similar stuff. ... I did, did you?
The stance (the part we're discussing anyways) is basically "put a rune on ally weapons sometimes".
Again, the weapon strikes do not get the Impulse trait. The flame rune on the weapon does not have the impulse trait.
The duration and the limitations, raw wise, are irrelevant, they can be used for a RAI argument (which as I said is murkier which is which without dev comments), but RAW wise, nothing makes the weapon strikes proc your junction aura, since that only work on Impulses, which is neither the strike, nor the rune on the strike.
For all intents and purposes, RAW-wise, it's just a short term buff.
shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: It could get out of hand if you allowed it, but at the same time impulse is doing the damage. Question: "Would the PCs do the fire damage without the impulse?" Answer is no, they would not. Thus the impulse is doing the damage, so the weakness should work. That can be flipped around:
"is the impulse doing damage without the PC Striking? The answer is no, ergo it's the Strike that does the damage and not the impulse."
For me it's a similar question as "does Runic Weapon deal damage/get buffed by damage buffs?" And I would answer no, Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it wouldn't get affected by stuff that give bonus to damage for the caster, it's just a buff to a weapon. No. It can't be flipped around. The weapon could strike and hit and the fire damage would not occur without the impulse. A hit roll or save is common for any damage dealing effect. One of the effects of the impulse is to cause weapons to do fire damage.
The runic weapon doesn't gain a bonus because it is a duration. Fortunately, Dangerous Sorcery was written so that it did not buff spells with a duration or that would have been very powerful. Runic Weapon does get specialization and runes and things that apply to weapons.
A direct reading of the rules would indicate the impulse does the damage and thus gets the bonus. There is no qualifier for duration or any other factor. As long as it has the impulse tag and does fire damage, the weakness applies. Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
So this question of yours prove absolutely nothing.
Imo the raw is clear, albeit the rai less so:
The strike doesn't have the impulse trait, so it doesn't benefit from stuff proccing from impulses.
It's just a weapon buff no different than someone using ... The flaming rune damage doesn't need the impulse trait. They only get the damage effect of the rune if they are in the aura and take a move action until the end of their turn. So no, it's not a buff. It's an aura ability.
Let's compare it to Thermal Nimbus. This will do half level plus weakness damage. So level 12 it does 12 points of fire damage no save to every enemy in the aura.
So Kindle Inner Flames does 1d6 plus 6 per strike with flame. How many people in the aura have strikes? How many enemies are in the aura? Seems to me that it is roughly the same amount of damage except in a more focused manner because the strikes can be directed.
So I don't see the problem with it. It's a different mechanical method for a stance impulse to work in the aura. So I don't know why you wouldn't get the aura weakness bonus. It's exactly built for abilities like Kindle Inner Flames, a stance that does fire damage within the Kinetic Aura.
So as a DM, I plan to allow it. The impulse is causing the bonus damage. It only occurs within the aura. It is only until the end of a players turn. Given party compositions, it seems to me that won't be much damage unless you specifically build for it. Even then, is it it a better stance than Thermal Nimbus? Depends on how many enemies are in the aura and how many people hit with their strikes.
So I would allow it and only adjust if I see some problem with it. It's an aura ability and built to boost fire weakness within the aura. The extra fire damage is generated by the impulse even if mechanically it uses a flaming rune to model the damage.
shroudb wrote: The stance (the part we're discussing anyways) is basically "put a rune on ally weapons sometimes". It is not 'put a rune on...'. We have an impulse that does exactly that, and it is not worded this way. Ghosts in the Storm: "...its Strikes gain the shock rune." That is how the wording looks when the devs have an impulse add a weapon rune effect to strikes. They even italicized the word 'shock' so we'd know they're talking about a rune.
Quote: Again, the weapon strikes do not get the Impulse trait. The flame rune on the weapon does not have the impulse trait. But again, it's not a rune. Nothing in the Kindle Inner Flames description says rune. Just because runes add damage and this adds damage /= this is a rune. When certain conditions are met - someone moves, then strikes, and that someone remains within the kineticist's aura - the aura impulse adds 2 fire damage.
***
Though I think Riddlyn's question is best answered by Errenor; yes if you have a Kineticist/Oracle they could cast Incendiary Aura one round, then on the next round Channel Elements to gain the benefit of their fire aura junction. But since the fire aura junction only adds weakness to your impulses, it provides no bonus to incendiary aura.
Wanting to apply fire's impulse junction and aura junction to everything seems to be a common kineticist question/misunderstanding on the fora, at least over the past few months. Impulse junction only increases die size for the 2a impulse used to trigger it, no other attacks. Aura junction only creates weakness to that kineticist's impulses, not non-impulse fire damage and not even any other kineticist's impulses which might do fire damage.
Easl wrote: shroudb wrote: The stance (the part we're discussing anyways) is basically "put a rune on ally weapons sometimes". It is not 'put a rune on...'. We have an impulse that does exactly that, and it is not worded this way. Ghosts in the Storm: "...its Strikes gain the shock rune." That is how the wording looks when the devs have an impulse add a weapon rune effect to strikes. They even italicized the word 'shock' so we'd know they're talking about a rune.
Quote: Again, the weapon strikes do not get the Impulse trait. The flame rune on the weapon does not have the impulse trait. But again, it's not a rune. Nothing in the Kindle Inner Flames description says rune. Just because runes add damage and this adds damage /= this is a rune. When certain conditions are met - someone moves, then strikes, and that someone remains within the kineticist's aura - the aura impulse adds 2 fire damage.
***
Though I think Riddlyn's question is best answered by Errenor; yes if you have a Kineticist/Oracle they could cast Incendiary Aura one round, then on the next round Channel Elements to gain the benefit of their fire aura junction. But since the fire aura junction only adds weakness to your impulses, it provides no bonus to incendiary aura.
Wanting to apply fire's impulse junction and aura junction to everything seems to be a common kineticist question/misunderstanding on the fora, at least over the past few months. Impulse junction only increases die size for the 2a impulse used to trigger it, no other attacks. Aura junction only creates weakness to that kineticist's impulses, not non-impulse fire damage and not even any other kineticist's impulses which might do fire damage.
Quote: Level (12th) The status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks is +2, and the Strikes gain the flaming rune instead of the extra 2 fire damage. So, unless your rationale is that the impulse gets worse when it levels up, i'll stick with what I'm reading:
a)there is no Impulse Trait on the strikes, ergo, RAW, it doesn't benefit from the aura.
b)the Stance doesn't "deal damage". It pretty clearly says that the Strike deals extra damage. It's just a buff.
Deriven Firelion wrote: ... All those damage comparissons are useless in this debate. They can maybe help with RAI but have absolutely nothing to do with RAW.
By RAW, nothing in the Strikes has the Impulse Trait, so, nothing in the strikes triggers the aura junction.
You may build a case with your gm as a houserule to allow it "because the other options deal X damage" but nothing in the rules actually allows it.
At this point, you're talking houserule teritory to make it a better stance to be equal to another stace, which is irrelevant to the conversation if it's RAW or not.
shroudb wrote:
Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
Is that actually an argument against Deriven's position then? Like, yeah, you need to land a strike to successfully deal the extra damage... so what? What does that have to do with it?
I'm not even sure what the RAW/RAI here is but this argument doesn't really seem like it matters to me.
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
Is that actually an argument against Deriven's position then? Like, yeah, you need to land a strike to successfully deal the extra damage... so what? What does that have to do with it?
I'm not even sure what the RAW/RAI here is but this argument doesn't really seem like it matters to me. It was an argument against his way of arguing.
His pov is that "since if there's no impulse, then there's no fire damage, that means that it's the impulse that does the damage"
The counterargument is "since if there's no strike, then there's no fire damage, that means that it's the strike that does the damage"
Proving basically that the initial question is not enough to prove the point (in either direction).
Both sentences are "technically correct", but prove nothing.
shroudb wrote: Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
Is that actually an argument against Deriven's position then? Like, yeah, you need to land a strike to successfully deal the extra damage... so what? What does that have to do with it?
I'm not even sure what the RAW/RAI here is but this argument doesn't really seem like it matters to me. It was an argument against his way of arguing.
His pov is that "since if there's no impulse, then there's no fire damage, that means that it's the impulse that does the damage"
The counterargument is "since if there's no strike, then there's no fire damage, that means that it's the strike that does the damage"
Proving basically that the initial question is not enough to prove the point (in either direction).
Both sentences are "technically correct", but prove nothing. It shows the impulse is doing the damage. What about when it does 2 fire damage? Does the weakness add then?
You run like you want, I plan to run it RAW. RAW it's an aura stance ability that lights your weapons on fire. It's modeled by the flaming rune, which creates rule issues because of the pedantic way rules are read.
All I see is a stance that enhances a fire kineticist's aura by giving fire damage to their weapons if they take a move action. It all occurs within the aura and if the PC steps out of the aura, then it doesn't work.
So I'm going to run it as the aura junction works for the fire damage by the weapons in the aura when the kineticist is in that stance. I think the opportunity cost of not using another stance and forcing everyone to have to be within the aura as well as expending class resources to obtain the abilities is sufficient to justify it.
Exact RAW reading following the rules indicates the weakness works.
1. Is the impulse causing the damage? Yes. There would be no damage if the impulse was not active.
2. Is it only within the Aura? Yes. It is an aura stance ability.
3. Is the flaming rune something that stays on the weapon outside the aura if the PC leaves? No. It doesn't. It is not an independent weapon buff with a duration. It is a specific effect modeled on the fire rune occurring within the aura.
Thus I plan to allow it as I believe RAW allows it. You're getting caught up in the way they modeled the ability rather than the clear fact it is an aura stance that should benefit from the aura junction.
And I'll leave it there as others can do as they see fit. But this is how I plan to run it. At the moment Thermal Nimbus is the only good fire aura I see people run. So another fire aura stance getting use is fine by me. I prefer players to have options and not be punished because Paizo modeled the ability in a way that causes rules confusion as they do too often in my opinion.
shroudb wrote: Quote: Level (12th) The status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks is +2, and the Strikes gain the flaming rune instead of the extra 2 fire damage. So, unless your rationale is that the impulse gets worse when it levels up, i'll stick with what I'm reading:
a)there is no Impulse Trait on the strikes, ergo, RAW, it doesn't benefit from the aura.
b)the Stance doesn't "deal damage". It pretty clearly says that the Strike deals extra damage. It's just a buff. Kindle inner flames clearly has the Impulse trait. Meanwhile, no damage add or dice from any impulse has an "impulse" trait specifically on the dice. Not Flying Flame, not Thermal Nimbus, not Solar Det. "Impulse" is always and only a trait on the whole the power, the feat, the text block, whatever you want to call it.
So if you're saying the Impulse trait mentioned once at the top of the text block is insufficient to activate the weakness because 'impulse' must be somehow further mentioned in the context of the damage source, then nothing activates it. Which is clearly not RAI. But if the Impulse trait mentioned once at the top of the text block is sufficient, then Kindle Inner Flame does impulse damage the exact same way Flying Flame and Solar Det do impulse damage. There is no rationale for treating this power differently or exceptionally compared to the other powers that mention the same trait in the same top of the text block and similarly don't mention it later when describing the damage they do.
Deriven Firelion wrote: shroudb wrote: Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
Again, the exact same logic you use "if there's no impulse there's no fire damage" can be flipped around "if there's no weapon strike there's no fire damage".
Is that actually an argument against Deriven's position then? Like, yeah, you need to land a strike to successfully deal the extra damage... so what? What does that have to do with it?
I'm not even sure what the RAW/RAI here is but this argument doesn't really seem like it matters to me. It was an argument against his way of arguing.
His pov is that "since if there's no impulse, then there's no fire damage, that means that it's the impulse that does the damage"
The counterargument is "since if there's no strike, then there's no fire damage, that means that it's the strike that does the damage"
Proving basically that the initial question is not enough to prove the point (in either direction).
Both sentences are "technically correct", but prove nothing. It shows the impulse is doing the damage. What about when it does 2 fire damage? Does the weakness add then?
You run like you want, I plan to run it RAW. RAW it's an aura stance ability that lights your weapons on fire. It's modeled by the flaming rune, which creates rule issues because of the pedantic way rules are read.
All I see is a stance that enhances a fire kineticist's aura by giving fire damage to their weapons if they take a move action. It all occurs within the aura and if the PC steps out of the aura, then it doesn't work.
So I'm going to run it as the aura junction works for the fire damage by the weapons in the aura when the kineticist is in that stance. I think the opportunity cost of not using another stance and forcing everyone to have to be within the aura as well as expending class resources to obtain the abilities is sufficient to justify it.
Exact RAW reading following the rules indicates the weakness works.
1. Is the impulse causing the damage? Yes. There would be... I also plan to run it RAW:
1. Is the impulse dealing damage? No.
2.The strike, which is what is doing the damage, has no impulse trait.
So it doesn't trigger the weakness.
But you do you and run it as you want in your games.
Easl wrote: shroudb wrote: Quote: Level (12th) The status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks is +2, and the Strikes gain the flaming rune instead of the extra 2 fire damage. So, unless your rationale is that the impulse gets worse when it levels up, i'll stick with what I'm reading:
a)there is no Impulse Trait on the strikes, ergo, RAW, it doesn't benefit from the aura.
b)the Stance doesn't "deal damage". It pretty clearly says that the Strike deals extra damage. It's just a buff. Kindle inner flames clearly has the Impulse trait. Meanwhile, no damage add or dice from any impulse has an "impulse" trait specifically on the dice. Not Flying Flame, not Thermal Nimbus, not Solar Det. "Impulse" is always and only a trait on the whole the power, the feat, the text block, whatever you want to call it.
So if you're saying the Impulse trait mentioned once at the top of the text block is insufficient to activate the weakness because 'impulse' must be somehow further mentioned in the context of the damage source, then nothing activates it. Which is clearly not RAI. But if the Impulse trait mentioned once at the top of the text block is sufficient, then Kindle Inner Flame does impulse damage the exact same way Flying Flame and Solar Det do impulse damage. There is no rationale for treating this power differently or exceptionally compared to the other powers that mention the same trait in the same top of the text block and similarly don't mention it later when describing the damage they do.
The Impulse simply gives a buff to the weapon. The weapon deals the damage.
It's no different than if a caster had an ability that said "your spells deal 2 extra points of damage" and saying that Runic Weapon would grant those 2 points of damage to the buffed weapon.
The damaging impulse comparison later on makes as much sense as comparing the damage of a fireball from a caster with the damage of runic weapon from the same caster.
shroudb wrote: The Impulse simply gives a buff to the weapon. The weapon deals the damage. No, it doesn't do that. The text is very clear. "You shed faint, glowing embers, as do your allies while they’re in your kinetic aura. Anyone shedding these embers gains a +1 status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks and can Step as a free action once per round. When an affected creature takes a move action, its Strikes deal an extra 2 fire damage until the end of its turn."
It's an aura effect that creates embers, and the embers give the effect. If an ally starts holding a sword when the impulse is turned on, then throws the sword to someone outside the aura and instead picks up a rag doll, then (moves and) whacks someone with the rag doll, then the rag doll is surrounded by embers that add +2 fire...and the sword doesn't do anything extra. This is the exact opposite of runic weapon. In that case, if you cast runic weapon on the sword then the sword would keep the bonus no matter who was wielding it, and the originally targeted ally would not continue to get a bonus if they switched weapons.
So it's not an effect cast on a weapon. But guess what? It's not really even an effect cast on your allies, either. Like the sword, the allies gain and lose the ability to benefit from the embers as they move in and out of the aura. The benefits don't "stick" to anyone (except the kineticist). It's not an enchantment. The target of the impulse is not "1 weapon" (runic weapon) because the target is not any weapon at all. Given the behavior of the effect, the only target that would even make sense would be the kineticist. The benefits are the embers, and these are 'carried by' the aura. The stance "keeps" the benefits and does the work. It's impulse damage.
Easl wrote: shroudb wrote: The Impulse simply gives a buff to the weapon. The weapon deals the damage. No, it doesn't do that. The text is very clear. "You shed faint, glowing embers, as do your allies while they’re in your kinetic aura. Anyone shedding these embers gains a +1 status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks and can Step as a free action once per round. When an affected creature takes a move action, its Strikes deal an extra 2 fire damage until the end of its turn."
It's an aura effect that creates embers, and the embers give the effect. If an ally starts holding a sword when the impulse is turned on, then throws the sword to someone outside the aura and instead picks up a rag doll, then (moves and) whacks someone with the rag doll, then the rag doll is surrounded by embers that add +2 fire...and the sword doesn't do anything extra. This is the exact opposite of runic weapon. In that case, if you cast runic weapon on the sword then the sword would keep the bonus no matter who was wielding it, and the originally targeted ally would not continue to get a bonus if they switched weapons.
So it's not an effect cast on a weapon. But guess what? It's not really even an effect cast on your allies, either. Like the sword, the allies gain and lose the ability to benefit from the embers as they move in and out of the aura. The benefits don't "stick" to anyone (except the kineticist). It's not an enchantment. The target of the impulse is not "1 weapon" (runic weapon) because the target is not any weapon at all. Given the behavior of the effect, the only target that would even make sense would be the kineticist. The benefits are the embers, and these are 'carried by' the aura. The stance "keeps" the benefits and does the work. It's impulse damage. Anyone affected by the stance, gets a damage buff on his weapon strikes. You bolded the wrong thing:
"When an affected creature takes a move action, its Strikes deal an extra 2 fire damage until the end of its turn."
The Impulse itself, deals no damage, it just buffs the attacks of those affected.
Excluding the trigger requirements, that's no different than any other aura buff in the game.
Again, similar to if there was an ability that said "your spells deal 2 extra damage" you wouldn't buff the damage of Runic Weapon, or someone affected by your Heroism, or the Quickened Strike from a Haste, exactly like that, it doesn't benefit from the aura junction.
You want aura based buffs? That's no different than claiming that theoretical damage bonus on those currently in your Bless aura.
shroudb wrote: Again, similar to if there was an ability that said "your spells deal 2 extra damage" you wouldn't buff the damage of Runic Weapon, or someone affected by your Heroism, or the Quickened Strike from a Haste, exactly like that, it doesn't benefit from the aura junction.
You want aura based buffs? That's no different than claiming that theoretical damage bonus on those currently in your Bless aura.
We agree that this is an aura based buff. The kinticist's aura is buffed by a stance impulse, and this impulse causes damage to enemies under certain conditions. So IMO it triggers "Enemies in your kinetic aura gain weakness to fire from your fire impulses". You did not enchant a weapon to do fire damage - the weapon is the same, and the power doesn't "stick" to it. You did not enchant your ally to add fire damage - the ally is the same, and again, the power doesn't "stick" to them. What the kineticist does is add floating fiery embers to her aura. These embers add a new effect to the kineticist's aura. That effect is to do damage to enemies when an ally in her aura moves and strikes.
If Bless added holy damage, and someone asked "where is that holy damage coming from", we'd quite naturally say "the Bless spell." Well the exact same thing is true here. "Where is that fire damage coming from?" The stance impulse. If someone asked (in the hypothetical Bless case) "is the source of that holy damage a spell or the weapon" we'd say "a spell, not the weapon." Likewise, the source of this damage is an impulse, not a weapon. So the damage is affected by things which impact impulse damage.
I probably shouldn't get involved here, but I just can't resist conversations about kineticists. I also can't resist... MATH!
I get that we're mostly parsing unclear rules and disagreeing about interpretations, something all too common with RoE (at least Kindle Inner Flames[KiF] is usable and doesn't lack a range or an area!) I think either interpretation is reasonable, though personally I'd lean towards KiF damage being damage from the impulse as others have argued above. However, I'd do so not only because of my interpretation of the rules, but because MAN, it would be a bummer if it didn't. Once you look at the numbers, the added damage from KiF becomes appallingly low without it, given that the aura junction is practically a requirement for fire kineticists to keep up in damage.
So, let's compare Kindle Inner Flames with Thermal Nimbus[TN], the other stance available to Fire Kineticists. There's no rules ambiguity there, TN certainly triggers the aura junction weakness. Given that, let's compare the damage output of the two at level 8 in a few different circumstances.
[Now I'll admit, if we're factoring in overall utility, KiF is usually going to be better: 5 feet of movement for each party member walking by, along with a +1 bonus to reflex saves and acrobatics checks. Compare to TN's scaling Fire resistance and we've certainly got a broader use case. But either one is still a 10 foot emanation for a pretty mild buff, and KiF is level 8 vs level 4. And it's not like fire breathing dragons don't exist.]
TN vs Single Target: Pretty easy - it's 8. 4 from the Nimbus, plus 4 from the aura junction weakness. Nice.
TN vs Two Targets: Same, but there's two of them. It's 16.
TN vs Three or more targets: Pretty much only limited by how many things can start their turns or enter your aura per round. n*8 where n is the number of bozos getting in close.
From this we can see that Thermal Nimbus is a mild damage boost against a single target, and becomes a massive damage multiplier against hordes of enemies. It also scales far better, and doesn't require our allies to give up a weapon property rune at higher levels.
Now, KiF is far more complex in its damage calculation. Here are my extremely optimal, extremely unlikely conditions for our initial overview.
-Level 8 kineticist, level 8 Fighter, level 8 flurry ranger
-all within the aura
-all having +4 to strength
-all using +1 agile weapons (including the kineticist, as Elemental Blast is not a strike and thus does not trigger KiF)
-all making three attacks per turn, with Double Slice on the fighter
-target(s) has 27 base ac (average for level 8) and is flat footed
KiF added damage vs single target, no aura junction damage(Double slice followed by 1 action strike to maximize damage):
Fighter attack 1: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack 2: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack : +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8
Ranger attack 1: +17 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.15(4)]= 1.6
Ranger attack 2: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Ranger attack 3: +13 to hit, [0.4(2)+0.05(4)]= 1
Kineticist attack 1: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Kineticist attack 2: +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8
Kineticist attack 3: +7 to hit, [0.1(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.4
Total damage added by KiF = 11
Whew! So, if the all three of the party's martials stand next to each other swinging wildly, including our dagger-toting kineticist, the damage differential from KiF to a single target is... 3. Not too impressive given we've needed 10 actions versus TN's 1. What about additional targets?
KiF added damage vs two targets, no aura junction damage(Double slice followed by 1 action strike to maximize damage):
Fighter attack 1: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack 2: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack : +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8
Ranger attack 1: +17 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.15(4)]= 1.6
Ranger attack 2: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Ranger attack 3: +13 to hit, [0.4(2)+0.05(4)]= 1
Kineticist attack 1: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Kineticist attack 2: +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8
Kineticist attack 3: +7 to hit, [0.1(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.4
Total damage added by KiF = 11
Ah, right. Strikes target only one thing. Even if we manage to pile all 5 combatants into our friendly little aura, we still lose 5 damage against TN, which has also asked nothing of our party composition, group positioning, or additional feats. Additional enemies will also slightly reduce our likelihood of perpetual off-guard, and dent our damage a bit.
Now, let's see what happens when we add in our additional aura damage.
KiF added damage vs single target, with aura junction damage (1 action strike followed by Double Slice to maximize chance to hit):
Fighter attack 1: +19 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.25(10)]= 5.5
Fighter attack 2: +19 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Fighter attack : +11 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Ranger attack 1: +17 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.15(10)]= 4.5
Ranger attack 2: +15 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Ranger attack 3: +13 to hit, [0.4(6)+0.05(10)]= 2.9
Kineticist attack 1: +15 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Kineticist attack 2: +11 to hit, [0.3(6)+0.05(10)]= 2.3
Kineticist attack 3: +7 to hit, [0.1(6)+0.05(10)]= 1.1
Total damage added by KiF: 27.15
Alright, now we're talking! If we're gonna build our entire party around maximizing this level 8 feat against an unmoving training dummy, we should at least get some real damage out of it. We'd need to fight four whole things before TN starts to outclass us!
This is also ignoring the fact that our kineticist friend has given up a +2 to hit and a free hand by using a weapon rather than an Elemental Blast, and is either using a d4 agile weapon or has given up another ancestry or general feat for an agile d6.
For those who'd like a bit more realism in the KiF calculations, let's assume the fighter and ranger are the only ones getting the damage benefits, and that they're averaging two attacks per turn. The calculations will be the same as above, so I won't repeat them.
KiF added damage vs one or more targets, no aura junction damage(Double slice followed by 1 action strike to maximize damage) = 6.8
KiF added damage vs one or more targets, with aura junction damage (1 action strike followed by Double Slice to maximize chance to hit) = 16
So in a more normal encounter, KiF without the junction damage is always outclassed by TN, whereas with the damage it doubles TN against one target, then equals it against 2, and is rapidly outclassed against a horde.
TTTL;DR
Rules are rules, and sometimes they're unclear. Play them how you will. But remember that Too Good and Too Bad to be True are rules as well. It's very unlikely you're going to run into any balance issues if you let KiF trigger the damage weakness. It also seems unlikely to me that the intention of the impulse was that it would ask more of your entire party, and give them less. Given the number of kineticist feats that are confusingly written, unplayably bad, or lacking basic information, I think we can safely leave Kindle Inner Flames off the chopping block.
Easl wrote: shroudb wrote: Again, similar to if there was an ability that said "your spells deal 2 extra damage" you wouldn't buff the damage of Runic Weapon, or someone affected by your Heroism, or the Quickened Strike from a Haste, exactly like that, it doesn't benefit from the aura junction.
You want aura based buffs? That's no different than claiming that theoretical damage bonus on those currently in your Bless aura.
We agree that this is an aura based buff. The kinticist's aura is buffed by a stance impulse, and this impulse causes damage to enemies under certain conditions. So IMO it triggers "Enemies in your kinetic aura gain weakness to fire from your fire impulses". You did not enchant a weapon to do fire damage - the weapon is the same, and the power doesn't "stick" to it. You did not enchant your ally to add fire damage - the ally is the same, and again, the power doesn't "stick" to them. What the kineticist does is add floating fiery embers to her aura. These embers add a new effect to the kineticist's aura. That effect is to do damage to enemies when an ally in her aura moves and strikes.
If Bless added holy damage, and someone asked "where is that holy damage coming from", we'd quite naturally say "the Bless spell." Well the exact same thing is true here. "Where is that fire damage coming from?" The stance impulse. If someone asked (in the hypothetical Bless case) "is the source of that holy damage a spell or the weapon" we'd say "a spell, not the weapon." Likewise, the source of this damage is an impulse, not a weapon. So the damage is affected by things which impact impulse damage.
What we disagree is that the Impulse doesn't do any damage as worded.
As worded, those under the effects on the stace get a damage bonus on their Strikes.
The two are quite different imo, same as Runic Weapon doesn't deal damage, but something under its effects is doing more damage.
Or, to get back to your example with Bless:
If Bless indeed added holy damage to the Strikes of those affected by it, and there was a hypothetical feat saying "your spells deal 2 extra damage" would you be giving that boost to those affected by Bless? I wouldn't.
shroudb wrote: What we disagree is that the Impulse doesn't do any damage as worded.
As worded, those under the effects on the stace get a damage bonus on their Strikes.
Some other examples to consider. In order to "clarify" things. ;)
Does the Stoke the Heart spell itself cause damage?
How about Flame Wisp?
Runic Impression?
Arcane Cascade?
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
