| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thoughts?
Sounds like you have a munchkin on your hands.
I would question the validity of casting Winter Bolt on an ally - even a summoned one. That might not be technically against the rules, but it certainly isn't the intended use of the spell. As a PF2 GM I would be seriously considering shutting that down to begin with.
And yes, a minion's turn is the same as its controller's turn because the minion can only act during that turn. They don't get a separate turn outside of what the controlling character gets.
And in general PF2 is not meant to be played with munchkins. The GM and the players should not be in an arms race to see who can twist the rules the most to get some advantage over the other side in order to trivialize encounters or shut down that trivialization. That doesn't lead to fun and enjoyable story telling.
Yeah, PF2 works best when the players agree to stay within the clear power boundaries that the game provides, and the GM uses the known character expected power level to set the difficulty of the encounters appropriately.
If the players are wanting to play a campaign where the PCs roll through the encounters without too much difficulty, that can be arranged. If the players want a gritty game where risk of character death is threatened around every corner and in every battle, that can also be arranged.
But that arrangement goes out the window if the players are trying to game the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So round one he spends 3 actions to cast a summon that gets two actions to act?
Then round two he casts winter bolt on the summon hoping for a crit so it will explode?
He uses two spell slots and all his actions?
Is it really an overpowered combination? It sounds like they are using a bunch of resources for something that is just ok. I don't get it.
Why is this combo so good?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is considered a great strategy?
3 action summons.
2 action winter's bolt as part of Cold Domain.
Bolt doesn't go off until the end of the next turn and the summon must survive being adjacent to whatever it plans to target
Seems like an awful lot work to set up a nice damage burst over 3 turns.
I might allow them to try to set this up, then munchkin DM to constantly avoid it or do something really ruthless like have a monster use a push action to shove the summon next to a PC. Or just have the monsters kill the summon quickly.
Seems like a lot of work for a 3 round pay off.
I guess they are desperate munchkins because this is the best someone can come up with PF2, just more proof the game is so tightly built it is nearly impossible to munchkin.
Bolt doesn't go off until the end of the next turn and the summon must survive being adjacent to whatever it plans to target
Yeah, that is the part that is being argued against by the munchkin player.
"I spent my last action sustaining the summoning spell, so my turn is over. Now it is the summoned creatures 'turn' and at the end of its turn the bolt explodes."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player summoned before combat in this case. The dispute stemmed from the player believing the summon's "next turn" began after his, thus making it go off pretty much immediately. Given it was a low AC summon, the explosion would crit everything around it with no save either. I wasn't even preventing this person from doing this setup. It was all just the immediacy of the effect.
Round 1:
So he summons the summon.It spends its 2 actions doing nothing.
Round 2:
He blasts a frozen icicle in round 2 hoping for a crit hit that doesn't kill the summon and Sustains the summon. It doesn't do anything with its 2 actions.
Round 3:
He sustains. 2 actions. The creature moves to the target. It blows up when his turn ends?
The player does all this while hidden with the enemy and his fellow PCs doing nothing? I don't understand how the players are timing this out.
It isn't making sense within the framework of an encounter.
It seems like of fiddling around unnecessarily for something that isn't worth doing. It seems like anti-munchkinism given the amount of time for the set up.
What are they summoning that can take a critical hit from the Icicle? In what context are they using this?
I can't even see this working well at all. Are they stealthing to approach the enemy? What is the starting range of the encounter? They are using a max level spell slot summon to blast with a frozen icicle hoping for a crit? Or a lower level slot?
This seems like an absolutely terrible strategy that would take some ideal circumstances and some lucky rolling.
The player summoned before combat in this case. The dispute stemmed from the player believing the summon's "next turn" began after his, thus making it go off pretty much immediately. Given it was a low AC summon, the explosion would crit everything around it with no save either. I wasn't even preventing this person from doing this setup. It was all just the immediacy of the effect.Round 1:
So he summons the summon.It spends its 2 actions doing nothing.
Round 2:
He blasts a frozen icicle in round 2 hoping for a crit hit that doesn't kill the summon and Sustains the summon. It doesn't do anything with its 2 actions.
Round 3:
He sustains. 2 actions. The creature moves to the target. It blows up when his turn ends?
The player does all this while hidden with the enemy and his fellow PCs doing nothing? I don't understand how the players are timing this out.
It isn't making sense within the framework of an encounter.
It seems like of fiddling around unnecessarily for something that isn't worth doing. It seems like anti-munchkinism given the amount of time for the set up.
What are they summoning that can take a critical hit from the Icicle? In what context are they using this?
I can't even see this working well at all. Are they stealthing to approach the enemy? What is the starting range of the encounter? They are using a max level spell slot summon to blast with a frozen icicle hoping for a crit? Or a lower level slot?
This seems like an absolutely terrible strategy that would take some ideal circumstances and some lucky rolling.
*sigh*
No. Read it again.
Better, let me walk you through it.
Round -3: player summons creature and uses the 'sustain a spell' activity while another character opens the door and triggers the combat.
Round 1: player casts Winter Bolt on summoned creature hoping that it crits and doesn't kill the summon - probably by summoning something resistant or immune to cold damage. Then sustains the summoning spell. They declare that their turn is over.
Round 1b: Summoned creature's turn starts. It uses its two actions to run into the room into the middle of the enemies. It declares that its turn is over. Since this is the 'end of the target's next turn' Winter Bolt explodes.
I feel inclined to rule that a minion's turn would technically "start" at the same time as its summoner. This would cause a full round delay before the explosion as the minion's "next" turn would occur on the players "next" turn. I also feel this falls more in line with the intention of the spell: A delayed blast given people a chance to do something about it before it goes off.
My player feels the minions turn would start when they use an action to command them, or start at the end of their turn if they don't use an action to command them at all per the verbiage:
The rules don't say. So just make a choice and be consistent.
I tend to let the minions controller choose when the minions turn resolves.
Round -3: player summons creature and uses the 'sustain a spell' activity while another character opens the door and triggers the combat.Round 1: player casts Winter Bolt on summoned creature hoping that it crits and doesn't kill the summon - probably by summoning something resistant or immune to cold damage. Then sustains the summoning spell. They declare that their turn is over.
Round 1b: Summoned creature's turn starts. It uses its two actions to run into the room into the middle of the enemies. It declares that its turn is over. Since this is the 'end of the target's next turn' Winter Bolt explodes.
The problem being that there is no saving throw listed for the secondary damage. That is the real problem here. Maybe it is intended in some cases like say Flammable Fumes, but really I think that a GM should look at any situation like this and ask themselves is it OK?
To my mind the reasonable response to this combo, would be to grant a basic save. Just not for the target that has the bolt imbedded in them.
And in general PF2 is not meant to be played with munchkins. The GM and the players should not be in an arms race to see who can twist the rules the most to get some advantage over the other side in order to trivialize encounters or shut down that trivialization. That doesn't lead to fun and enjoyable story telling.
Munchkins are people too. Let them have their fun. Just be a reasonable GM and say no if they manage to break things too badly.
The player summoned before combat in this case. The dispute stemmed from the player believing the summon's "next turn" began after his, thus making it go off pretty much immediately. Given it was a low AC summon, the explosion would crit everything around it with no save either. I wasn't even preventing this person from doing this setup. It was all just the immediacy of the effect.Round 1:
So he summons the summon.It spends its 2 actions doing nothing.
Round 2:
He blasts a frozen icicle in round 2 hoping for a crit hit that doesn't kill the summon and Sustains the summon. It doesn't do anything with its 2 actions.
Round 3:
He sustains. 2 actions. The creature moves to the target. It blows up when his turn ends?
The player does all this while hidden with the enemy and his fellow PCs doing nothing? I don't understand how the players are timing this out.
It isn't making sense within the framework of an encounter.
It seems like of fiddling around unnecessarily for something that isn't worth doing. It seems like anti-munchkinism given the amount of time for the set up.
What are they summoning that can take a critical hit from the Icicle? In what context are they using this?
I can't even see this working well at all. Are they stealthing to approach the enemy? What is the starting range of the encounter? They are using a max level spell slot summon to blast with a frozen icicle hoping for a crit? Or a lower level slot?
This seems like an absolutely terrible strategy that would take some ideal circumstances and some lucky rolling.
*sigh*
No. Read it again.
Better, let me walk you through it.
Round -3: player summons creature and uses the 'sustain a spell' activity while another character opens the door and triggers the combat.
Round 1: player casts Winter Bolt on summoned creature hoping that it crits and doesn't kill the summon - probably by summoning something resistant or immune to cold...
Minion rules clearly state the minion acts on your turn. It does not get a turn of its own. Its turn ends when your turn ends.
Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands.
The explanation you gave is not how the minion rules work or the summoning rules. Or the Icicle spell which says end of target's next turn.
It would work like the following:
Round 1: Summon 3 actions. Summon can use 2 actions to do whatever you command it to do. There is no sustain action on this round. So I'm assuming it moves or something into position.
Round 2: Fires icicle hoping to not kill the creature. I guess a cold immune or resistant creature he has clearly researched since immunity is not as common as it once was.
End of Round 3 of your turn because the minion does not get its own turn but acts on yours so its turn ends when your next turn ends: Sustain action. Minion moves into position. Bolt explodes doing the damage.
That is how I would run it as a DM. Minions don't get separate turns. They operate entirely on the same turn as the minion summoner or companion owner.
I still don't know what level creature they are summoning. No idea at all. For all I know it tries to move in if low level and gets wiped out by an aura or AoO. Or things aren't positioned well for it to do much.
This is one of those theoretical tactics that looks interesting on paper, then goes completely off the rails in play.
I'm not seeing this working very well in play. Very action intensive, requires a lot of movement and set up, for maybe good damage.
It tops out at 240 cold damage to adjacent creatures using a summon of unknown level and a focus spell along with a lot of coordination.
I'd let them try it myself. If they can set it up to work in an impactful way, I guess reward their coordination. I see a lot of areas of failure with this tactic for better bang for the buck doing other things.
I don't personally consider this a munchkin tactic. It looks like an anti-munchkin tactic praying the DM sets everything up for them inside the room or area to make it work well.
My usual response to attempts like this is to let them give it a shot. I'm still going to set things up in a naturalistic fashion meaning if they are outside a room or an area, they will have to use Stealth to beat the Perception of the creature inside including the summon. If that creature hears the activity, it's going to start setting up its own counter ambush.
I'm still wondering how they even know where the target it located to command the summon to go to it and attack with perfect accuracy.
The flow of battle is not how I run games. I very much require characters casting spells outside doors to employ stealth or the things inside are already moving.
That's when the group, by chance, starts to encounter only creatures that are immune to cold...
This particular example never really got to the point of figuring if it was "munchkining" so just how effective the strategy is is irrelevant. The original responder was very correct in identifying that it's something that has become a problem at the table.
It's become a problem because only half the players are doing it - creating excessively complicated builds and gimmicky combinations while, at the same time, not knowing the rules well enough to be doing it. This resulted in too many extended pauses in play to resolve questions like this one. Situations where we're having to pour over the specific verbiage of various things to see if it's legitimate and, failing that, having to make a judgment call balancing player fun and intended effective which occasionally results in unhappy players.
This question got posted here because it finally caused a schism at the table since I didn't rule in entirely favor of whatever the player was trying to do - whether it was effective or munchkining or not. The schism was actually bad enough to where I am no longer DM for this table due to the way the player responded but that's another issue.
What actually occurred during the fight was that the summon was presummoned. X number of turns went by as the fight started and some actions occurred for people to get into position. Fighting happened in that time. Spells were cast. The summon was sustained. etc.
On turn X the summon was in place. The player sustained it and cast winter bolt on it. It's worth noting that it was a slime mold summon - 12 AC and critical immunity meaning it's immune to the extra critical damage but not any other critical success effects. So it's mostly guaranteed to crit which means double damage to everything around it every time since the explosion is a separate critical effect.
The dispute was whether the summons turn *starts* when the players turn starts or when the player commands it (or doesn't command it). The latter would result in the summon's next turn starting immediately and...
Sounds like a pushy player.
Summons go on the same turn as the summoner. No summon, companion, or minion gets it own turn. So its turns starts and ends on your turn. Sounds like this player was trying to claim this isn't an understood rule, when this is one of the more clear rules in PF2.
I have not had any confusion over the minion rule which clearly states it acts on your turn meaning the caster or user of the AC. It acts on your initiative, cannot delay or change its initiative, and in the case of summons doesn't even exist until you sustain it on your turn.
That's part of what I like about PF2. If this is the best munchkin rules lawyers can come up with to "break the system", this game is really tightly designed to avoid power gaming. That tactic is a really convoluted use of actions for a minor league payoff that will, as has happened at your table, just annoy your DM and likely other players at the table.
