Exploit vulnerability

[natepeck]

so this came up in the current playthrough of abomination vaults we encountered a pack of creatures that didnt have a weakness i exploited vulnerability and wanted to use mortal weakness so that all were effected not for extra dmg but so i could use my reaction on the multiple creatures. is this legal? seems reasonable to me.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I'm afraid I don't see any way that might work. I'm not a Thaum expert by any measure, but if I'm reading this right, it seems like you want to use a Mortal Weakness on a creature that doesn't have one, so that your weapon implement will be triggered by creatures other than your Exploit target.

It looks to me like even if you could target an imaginary mortal "Weakness 0", the weapon implement reaction still only triggers against your original target, not against any other creatures of the same type present. And vice versa, for that matter.

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

"Trigger The target of your Exploit Vulnerability[...]"
does not leave much room for speculation.

[shroudb]

Furthermore, I want to point out that even if they had a weakness to exploit:

"This damage affects the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, as well as any other creatures of the exact same type, but not other creatures with the same weakness."

The only thing they share is the damage boost.

You would still only be able to use your reaction against the single creature you actually used Exploit on.

That's the limiting factor of the thaumaturge, your reactions/actives only work against a single creature at a time.

No abilities/feats, to my knowledge, change this.

[Cordell Kintner]

There is a feat for what you want, Sympathetic Vulnerabilities. You can only apply a Mortal Weakness bonus to your attacks if they have a weakness. If they have no weakness, you can only use a Personal Antithesis, which only applies to that specific target.

[Chani Loasa]

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

"Trigger The target of your Exploit Vulnerability[...]"

does not leave much room for speculation.

In the game that I am in, the GM ruled the same way. Which is fine - no complaints.

But there is room for speculation. It feels strange to have to choose one individual target arbitrarily for Exploit Vulnerability when all of the enemies in the combat will be affected by Mortal Weakness. It leaves a very strange edge case when that one primary target dies. Do I use Exploit Vulnerability again so that I have a new primary target that I can use my Amulet reaction on - and risk failing at the roll and suddenly forgetting what these creatures Mortal Weakness is? Or do I instead continue using the Mortal Weakness that I already know - and don't have to spend an action - but then lose out on being able to use my Amulet?

The alternative reasoning is that 'the target of your Exploit Vulnerability' is any creature that would be affected by your Exploit Vulnerability. Whether that is because the creatures are identical and you are using Mortal Weakness against all of them, or because you have Sympathetic Vulnerabilities and can affect multiple creatures more easily.

[HammerJack]

Sympathetic Vulnerabilities doesn't do what they want. It allows for using the Personal Antithesis weakness against multiple enemies. It does NOT make them all the target of Exploit Vulnerability for using implement actions any more than Mortal Weakness does.

[shroudb]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

There is a feat for what you want, Sympathetic Vulnerabilities. You can only apply a Mortal Weakness bonus to your attacks if they have a weakness. If they have no weakness, you can only use a Personal Antithesis, which only applies to that specific target.

That won't help with what he wants.

Sympathetic vulnerabilities only helps with damage.

What he wants is for them to also be counted as "Targets of your Exploit Vulnerability"

[The Raven Black]

Chani Loasa wrote:

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

"Trigger The target of your Exploit Vulnerability[...]"

does not leave much room for speculation.

In the game that I am in, the GM ruled the same way. Which is fine - no complaints.

But there is room for speculation. It feels strange to have to choose one individual target arbitrarily for Exploit Vulnerability when all of the enemies in the combat will be affected by Mortal Weakness. It leaves a very strange edge case when that one primary target dies. Do I use Exploit Vulnerability again so that I have a new primary target that I can use my Amulet reaction on - and risk failing at the roll and suddenly forgetting what these creatures Mortal Weakness is? Or do I instead continue using the Mortal Weakness that I already know - and don't have to spend an action - but then lose out on being able to use my Amulet?

The alternative reasoning is that 'the target of your Exploit Vulnerability' is any creature that would be affected by your Exploit Vulnerability. Whether that is because the creatures are identical and you are using Mortal Weakness against all ofea them, or because you have Sympathetic Vulnerabilities and can affect multiple creatures more easily.

You're not forgetting what their weaknesses actually are. But you need to reattune your attacks to a new opponent since the previous one is dead, thereby ending any attunement you had to them.

[Chani Loasa]

The Raven Black wrote:

You're not forgetting what their weaknesses actually are. But you need to reattune your attacks to a new opponent since the previous one is dead, thereby ending any attunement you had to them.

However you describe it in-game, the point is that I don't have to do that normally. Only if I want to continue using my Amulet.

If I succeed at Exploit Vulnerability initially and don't spend an action on Exploit Vulnerability after the first target dies, I can keep using Mortal Weakness to trigger cold weakness against the entire group of Magma Scorpions. But if I want to use my Amulet on any more than the first one of them, then I have to use an action and risk dropping down to only Personal Antithesis levels of weakness (or even nothing if I crit-fail the roll).

[shroudb]

Chani Loasa wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

You're not forgetting what their weaknesses actually are. But you need to reattune your attacks to a new opponent since the previous one is dead, thereby ending any attunement you had to them.

However you describe it in-game, the point is that I don't have to do that normally. Only if I want to continue using my Amulet.

If I succeed at Exploit Vulnerability initially and don't spend an action on Exploit Vulnerability after the first target dies, I can keep using Mortal Weakness to trigger cold weakness against the entire group of Magma Scorpions. But if I want to use my Amulet on any more than the first one of them, then I have to use an action and risk dropping down to only Personal Antithesis levels of weakness (or even nothing if I crit-fail the roll).

Which is consistent with the flavour text of why the ability works to begin with :

Quote:

After identifying a creature's weakness, you use a thematically resonant bit of esoterica to attune your attacks to your discovery

As long as your are using this specifically attuned esoterica, it works. When you try to attune a different esoterica, so as to make a different creature as your target, you will need to attune again and you may not do so great this time around.

You don't forget they are weak to fire, you just can't attune your attacks to be fire that instant.

[Chani Loasa]

shroudb wrote:

You don't forget they are weak to fire, you just can't attune your attacks to be fire that instant.

I think you crit-failed your Exploit Vulnerability roll.

And none of that is addressing the feels-bad nature of having to forego the benefits of Mortal Weakness against multiple of the same enemy or how it devalues Sympathetic Vulnerabilities for Amulet, Weapon, Bell implements, but not for Chalice, Lantern, or Mirror.

[shroudb]

Chani Loasa wrote:

shroudb wrote:

You don't forget they are weak to fire, you just can't attune your attacks to be fire that instant.

I think you crit-failed your Exploit Vulnerability roll.

And none of that is addressing the feels-bad nature of having to forego the benefits of Mortal Weakness against multiple of the same enemy or how it devalues Sympathetic Vulnerabilities for Amulet, Weapon, Bell implements, but not for Chalice, Lantern, or Mirror.

I've played quite a bit of amulet thaum and I don't feelbad.

To me that is how they balanced thaum, strong reactions but limited targets. I certainly don't think our reaction should overshadow or even match the dedicated classes of those reactions.

So if I had to choose between keeping the reactions as strong as they are, but also limited on targets, OR have them be much weaker but no target restriction, I would always choose the 1st option.

Ps.
I didn't get the "you crit failed" comment, but what you quoted from my post there perfectly describes what happens.
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't mean that narratively doesn't actually make sense.

[Chani Loasa]

shroudb wrote:

Ps.

I didn't get the "you crit failed" comment

In your sentence, I have to assume that the 'they' that you reference is the Magma Scorpions that I presented in my example. Which are weak to cold damage, not fire damage.

-----

My reasoning is that this scenario is rather an edge case. So far, it could have come up in one of my battles - but the circumstances of the combat made it not actually happen. The rest of the party defeated the non-targeted identical creature while I was fighting my target alone. Mostly as a distraction and enemy splitting tactic.

So I don't see any need to nerf Mortal Weakness or Sympathetic Vulnerabilities as a side effect of having an implement that could possibly target more than one enemy in very rare circumstances.

And on the other hand, I don't plan to ever spend a feat slot on Sympathetic Vulnerabilities because there is no point. I am going to be switching Exploit Vulnerability target anyway to keep my Amulet available. The feat is completely worthless to me. As is the multiple target ability of Mortal Weakness. Neither of those are worth mentioning for a Thaumaturge that uses an implement with a reaction that affects only the Exploit Vulnerability target.

[shroudb]

Chani Loasa wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Ps.

I didn't get the "you crit failed" comment

In your sentence, I have to assume that the 'they' that you reference is the Magma Scorpions that I presented in my example. Which are weak to cold damage, not fire damage.

-----

My reasoning is that this scenario is rather an edge case. So far, it could have come up in one of my battles - but the circumstances of the combat made it not actually happen. The rest of the party defeated the non-targeted identical creature while I was fighting my target alone. Mostly as a distraction and enemy splitting tactic.

So I don't see any need to nerf Mortal Weakness or Sympathetic Vulnerabilities as a side effect of having an implement that could possibly target more than one enemy in very rare circumstances.

And on the other hand, I don't plan to ever spend a feat slot on Sympathetic Vulnerabilities because there is no point. I am going to be switching Exploit Vulnerability target anyway to keep my Amulet available. The feat is completely worthless to me. As is the multiple target ability of Mortal Weakness. Neither of those are worth mentioning for a Thaumaturge that uses an implement with a reaction that affects only the Exploit Vulnerability target.

from my understanding, you play on lower levels still (since you haven't even reached Sympathetic).

weaknesses become more and more prominent the higher your level, so what you think is an edge case, it becomes much more common as you progress.

Sympathetic is nice, because you can focus on one target, usually the boss, which is the one you want to be using your reactions against, and still help clear out the rest of the enemies without you losing damage.

The same can be said about the main Exploit sharing damage. It's very helpful vs smaller targets, where you don't need to be wasting actions to be switching around Exploit just for the reaction, or if there's a harder target, you can always designate that one, and go clear up the mooks without losing damage.

But facing groups of similar enemies is something that's very common, so if a single Exploit opened up reactions against the whole group, it would certainly unbalance Thaum, who is really only limited by his action economy to have to Exploit if he wants to fully utilize all his abilities against each target.

[Easl]

Exploit Vulnerability is the action, 'mortal weakness' and 'personal antithesis' are the two possible outcomes.

I'd probably rule that if you Exploit Vulnerability and find a mortal weakness (book example: werewolves and silver), then after you kill the first werewolf you are still "benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability" (the text under Amulet) because your damage bonus will apply to the rest, so therefore your amulet's going to work against the rest of them.

However if you are facing a group of, say, humans with no such weakness, so your EV action produced a 'personal antithesis' outcome, then once you kill that first one you're going to have to redo EV before your amulet works on another.

As shroudb says, the in-game explanation is that in the second case your esoteric magic doesn't have any existing weakness to grab onto, so you have to use it to attune to the specific individual critter instead. And thus your EV benefit ends when that specific individual critter dies (or you stop targeting it). Mortal weakness is what you want to find; personal antithesis is the game's way of saying "don't worry, your Thaumaturge will always get at least *one* bonus when there isn't one."

Experts, how off base am I?

[Ectar]

Chani Loasa wrote:

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

"Trigger The target of your Exploit Vulnerability[...]"

does not leave much room for speculation.

...

The alternative reasoning is that 'the target of your Exploit Vulnerability' is any creature that would be affected by your Exploit Vulnerability. Whether that is because the creatures are identical and you are using Mortal Weakness against all of them, or because you have Sympathetic Vulnerabilities and can affect multiple creatures more easily.

Mortal Weakness specifically says "This damage affects the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, as well as any other creatures of the exact same type, but not other creatures with the same weakness."

Who is affected by your having chosen to exploit a Mortal Weakness has no bearing on who the target of Exploit Weakness was.

It might not make for the most satisfying gameplay experience all the time, but honestly I think the action economy hit is one of the main balancing points of the Thaumaturge.

[Chani Loasa]

Easl wrote:

I'd probably rule that if you Exploit Vulnerability and find a mortal weakness (book example: werewolves and silver), then after you kill the first werewolf you are still "benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability" (the text under Amulet) because your damage bonus will apply to the rest, so therefore your amulet's going to work against the rest of them.

That's my alternative ruling above.

The strict RAW ruling is that the second werewolf isn't your original Exploit Vulnerability target. So while you still benefit from Mortal Weakness against that second werewolf, you can't use your Amulet against its attacks.

[Squiggit]

You keep saying 'strict RAW' like this is some wacky edge case but from my reading that's just how the ability functions plainly and clearly.

Being able to continue applying the same damage buff is a neat benefit of mortal weakness, but you still only have one exploit vulnerability target. That seems very much intentional.

[Chani Loasa]

'Strict RAW' isn't meant to be disparaging. Strict RAW, loose RAW, and houserules are all valid ways of playing the game.

And it does feel like a wacky edge case because some of the implements are affected by this and others aren't. And that causes the case of having to choose between keeping Mortal Weakness that you already have or spending and action and a skill check to reattune to the next enemy.

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

[Squiggit]

I mean yeah that's just how the implements work. You'd run into the same issue if you weren't talking about mortal weakness at all.

To put it another way, Personal Antithesis very clearly gives you a bonus against one specific enemy and you have to re-apply it every time. There's no ambiguity that you'd need to reroll against every foe to use your amulet.

Mortal Weakness, as a bonus, lets you apply the weakness exploiting ability to every copy of that monster on the battlefield instead of just one. It doesn't, and doesn't need to, also give the extra extra bonus of letting all those enemies simultaneously count as being targeted by exploit vulnerability.

So we're basically getting a free bonus by hitting MW instead of PA, which makes it feel weird to call it punishing to not also get a second free bonus too.

[Chani Loasa]

Squiggit wrote:

So we're basically getting a free bonus by hitting MW instead of PA,

You might be. As a Chalice Implement Thaumaturge.

With an Amulet Implement, I don't feel like it is giving me any bonus at all. That ability in Mortal Weakness could be removed entirely and it would make no difference at all.

[Ectar]

Chani Loasa wrote:

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

I could get behind this as a change. It IS a FeelsBadMan to succeed on your EV check against a bunch of the same kind of foe and then fail when attempting to "transfer" your targeting for your implement reaction.

RAW, it seems like this is the case. But from a game feel perspective, I'd probably have it just be an action tax without a chance to fail if I were GMing a home game.

[The Raven Black]

Ectar wrote:

Chani Loasa wrote:

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

I could get behind this as a change. It IS a FeelsBadMan to succeed on your EV check against a bunch of the same kind of foe and then fail when attempting to "transfer" your targeting for your implement reaction.

RAW, it seems like this is the case. But from a game feel perspective, I'd probably have it just be an action tax without a chance to fail if I were GMing a home game.

What about the reverse ? If you fail or critically fail at your first Exploit Vulnerability roll against one of the pack, would it feel fair to be unable to try again for a better result against another of the same kind of foe ?

It has to work the same in both cases.

[Ectar]

The Raven Black wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Chani Loasa wrote:

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

I could get behind this as a change. It IS a FeelsBadMan to succeed on your EV check against a bunch of the same kind of foe and then fail when attempting to "transfer" your targeting for your implement reaction.

RAW, it seems like this is the case. But from a game feel perspective, I'd probably have it just be an action tax without a chance to fail if I were GMing a home game.

What about the reverse ? If you fail or critically fail at your first Exploit Vulnerability roll against one of the pack, would it feel fair to be unable to try again for a better result against another of the same kind of foe ?

It has to work the same in both cases.

The Inventor's Overdrive doesn't work as you say that it has to. Why should this?

[The Raven Black]

Ectar wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Chani Loasa wrote:

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

I could get behind this as a change. It IS a FeelsBadMan to succeed on your EV check against a bunch of the same kind of foe and then fail when attempting to "transfer" your targeting for your implement reaction.

RAW, it seems like this is the case. But from a game feel perspective, I'd probably have it just be an action tax without a chance to fail if I were GMing a home game.

What about the reverse ? If you fail or critically fail at your first Exploit Vulnerability roll against one of the pack, would it feel fair to be unable to try again for a better result against another of the same kind of foe ?

It has to work the same in both cases.

The Inventor's Overdrive doesn't work as you say that it has to. Why should this?

The Overdrive has a special rule for this, which has no equivalent in Exploit Vulnerability AFAICT.

[Ectar]

The Raven Black wrote:

Ectar wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Chani Loasa wrote:

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

I could get behind this as a change. It IS a FeelsBadMan to succeed on your EV check against a bunch of the same kind of foe and then fail when attempting to "transfer" your targeting for your implement reaction.

RAW, it seems like this is the case. But from a game feel perspective, I'd probably have it just be an action tax without a chance to fail if I were GMing a home game.

What about the reverse ? If you fail or critically fail at your first Exploit Vulnerability roll against one of the pack, would it feel fair to be unable to try again for a better result against another of the same kind of foe ?

It has to work the same in both cases.

The Inventor's Overdrive doesn't work as you say that it has to. Why should this?

The Overdrive has a special rule for this, which has no equivalent in Exploit Vulnerability AFAICT.

......right. Which is why I said I'd support the above idea as a change. What the rules are, to me, are quite clear. They're written out.

But for some cases, the rules make the play experience feel bad, so I'd support a change or a house rule that removes that negative play experience.
Mentioning the Inventor was my indicating precedent for the existence of this kind of better play experience, not a proof that the Thuamaturge already has some kind of exception.

[Chani Loasa]

The Raven Black wrote:

It has to work the same in both cases.

Why?

In one case you succeed at Exploit Vulnerability against one werewolf and can then use your Mortal Weakness against all of them for the rest of the battle - exactly as the rules say.

In the other case, you critically fail at the Exploit Vulnerability against one werewolf. Why shouldn't you be allowed to retry the Exploit Vulnerability the next round?

Why should the critical fail result be required to match the duration of a success result? The rules don't say that.

And that is without even bringing up particular implements and their reactions or lack thereof.

So am I confused on what you are presenting on the two cases you speak of?

[Easl]

Chani Loasa wrote:

In the other case, you critically fail at the Exploit Vulnerability against one werewolf. Why shouldn't you be allowed to retry the Exploit Vulnerability the next round?

Why should the critical fail result be required to match the duration of a success result? The rules don't say that.

I agree. The rules are pretty clear: EV can be attempted once per round. Not once per enemy or enemy group. If you don't get the chicken foot to sit on the silver button correctly the first time, you can realign them to see if it works the second time.

But after rereading it also seems pretty clear that the word 'target' refers to the originial individual and not the mortal weakness group, which leaves Amulet in the situation of only protecting you or an ally from Werewolf #1, not #2 or #3. I guess being able to protect an ally - and not just yourself - is supposed to be the counterbalancing benefit? In any event, it seems to point to a specific tactic: EV werewolf #1, then attack all other werewolves first.

[The Raven Black]

Chani Loasa wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

It has to work the same in both cases.

Why?

In one case you succeed at Exploit Vulnerability against one werewolf and can then use your Mortal Weakness against all of them for the rest of the battle - exactly as the rules say.

In the other case, you critically fail at the Exploit Vulnerability against one werewolf. Why shouldn't you be allowed to retry the Exploit Vulnerability the next round?

Why should the critical fail result be required to match the duration of a success result? The rules don't say that.

And that is without even bringing up particular implements and their reactions or lack thereof.

So am I confused on what you are presenting on the two cases you speak of?

I thought people were asking to be able to reroll the check against another similar monster when they failed against the first one but to not have to reroll (and thus not risk failure or even crit failure) when the first monster they checked successfully again died and they had to check again against another one.

So, asking for the RAW to apply when they benefited from it but to be exempt from the RAW when they risked not benefiting from it.

This I do not agree with except in specific cases provided by the RAW such as the Inventor's Overdrive ability mentioned above.

Now, Easl's workaround solution above is perfectly RAW. So no problem at my table if a player uses it.

[breithauptclan]

The Raven Black wrote:

I thought people were asking to be able to reroll the check against another similar monster when they failed against the first one but to not have to reroll (and thus not risk failure or even crit failure) when the first monster they checked successfully again died and they had to check again against another one.

So, asking for the RAW to apply when they benefited from it but to be exempt from the RAW when they risked not benefiting from it.

This I do not agree with except in specific cases provided by the RAW such as the Inventor's Overdrive ability mentioned above.

No, I just want to let my Amulet Thamuaturge actually be able to use the RAW ability of Exploit Vulnerability: To use the benefit of Exploit Vulnerability (either Mortal Weakness, or Sympathetic Vulnerabilities) - against an enemy that am already benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability with.

Having to switch targets feels bad that it will require me to reroll.

[Super Zero]

Ectar wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Chani Loasa wrote:

Honestly, I would be less miffed about it if I simply didn't have to roll for Exploit Vulnerability again. Spending the action seems fair. But risking a bad roll on Exploit Vulnerability while doing it seems punishing.

I could get behind this as a change. It IS a FeelsBadMan to succeed on your EV check against a bunch of the same kind of foe and then fail when attempting to "transfer" your targeting for your implement reaction.

RAW, it seems like this is the case. But from a game feel perspective, I'd probably have it just be an action tax without a chance to fail if I were GMing a home game.

What about the reverse ? If you fail or critically fail at your first Exploit Vulnerability roll against one of the pack, would it feel fair to be unable to try again for a better result against another of the same kind of foe ?

It has to work the same in both cases.

The Inventor's Overdrive doesn't work as you say that it has to. Why should this?

That's a completely different ability.

That does actually lock you out if trying again on a critical failure, which Exploiting does not.

[The Raven Black]

breithauptclan wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I thought people were asking to be able to reroll the check against another similar monster when they failed against the first one but to not have to reroll (and thus not risk failure or even crit failure) when the first monster they checked successfully again died and they had to check again against another one.

So, asking for the RAW to apply when they benefited from it but to be exempt from the RAW when they risked not benefiting from it.

This I do not agree with except in specific cases provided by the RAW such as the Inventor's Overdrive ability mentioned above.

No, I just want to let my Amulet Thamuaturge actually be able to use the RAW ability of Exploit Vulnerability: To use the benefit of Exploit Vulnerability (either Mortal Weakness, or Sympathetic Vulnerabilities) - against an enemy that am already benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability with.

Having to switch targets feels bad that it will require me to reroll.

Yet, that last part is the RAW too.

[breithauptclan]

The Raven Black wrote:

Yet, that last part is the RAW too.

Yes, but why?

There are plenty of things that are very much RAW and also don't make any sense. Such as being unable to swing a ghost touch greatsword at a ghost.

So why does this particular glitch in the rules not fall into the sucks to be you too much to be true category?

[shroudb]

breithauptclan wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Yet, that last part is the RAW too.

Yes, but why?

There are plenty of things that are very much RAW and also don't make any sense. Such as being unable to swing a ghost touch greatsword at a ghost.

So why does this particular glitch in the rules not fall into the sucks to be you too much to be true category?

I don't see any glitch though?

it's very clear that Explot clearly differates who is the target and who gets the extra damage.

they even spell it out that one creature is the target, and other creatures with same type also get the damage boost.

What's weird is that what's suppossed to be a clear benefit (other creatures apart from your target also suffering the extra damage) is viewed as a negative (that those other creatures are not your targets).

You don't see rangers asking for their hunt prey to work simultaneously vs every enemy, so why do you think thaumaturge should get that benefit?

The class is already strong even with having to switch targets, with that action cost being clearly a balancing point of the class.

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Yet, that last part is the RAW too.

Yes, but why?

There are plenty of things that are very much RAW and also don't make any sense. Such as being unable to swing a ghost touch greatsword at a ghost.

So why does this particular glitch in the rules not fall into the sucks to be you too much to be true category?

There's no glitch though. MW gives you a bonus that PA doesn't, but it doesn't also give you a second unrelated bonus. That's not a glitch that's just not getting freebies you were never promised in the first place.

[breithauptclan]

shroudb wrote:

What's weird is that what's suppossed to be a clear benefit (other creatures apart from your target also suffering the extra damage) is viewed as a negative (that those other creatures are not your targets).

You don't see rangers asking for their hunt prey to work simultaneously vs every enemy, so why do you think thaumaturge should get that benefit?

It's loss aversion. There is nothing weird about that.

It feels like if Ranger did get the benefits of Hunt Prey against all of the same creature types - unless you are a Flurry Ranger. Flurry still has to spend an action to switch targets.

Thaumaturge gets the benefits of Exploit Vulnerability against all creatures of the same type if they have a Mortal Weakness to exploit - except Weapon Implement Thaumaturge. Weapon Implement still has to spend an action and reroll EV in order to switch targets.

Oh, and except Amulet Thaumaturge. Because they deserve a nerf too.

[shroudb]

breithauptclan wrote:

shroudb wrote:

What's weird is that what's suppossed to be a clear benefit (other creatures apart from your target also suffering the extra damage) is viewed as a negative (that those other creatures are not your targets).

You don't see rangers asking for their hunt prey to work simultaneously vs every enemy, so why do you think thaumaturge should get that benefit?

It's loss aversion. There is nothing weird about that.

It feels like if Ranger did get the benefits of Hunt Prey against all of the same creature types - unless you are a Flurry Ranger. Flurry still has to spend an action to switch targets.

Thaumaturge gets the benefits of Exploit Vulnerability against all creatures of the same type if they have a Mortal Weakness to exploit - except Weapon Implement Thaumaturge. Weapon Implement still has to spend an action and reroll EV in order to switch targets.

Oh, and except Amulet Thaumaturge. Because they deserve a nerf too.

I think the correct phrase here is "give an inch, take a mile".

Also, you are wrong about singling out weapon/amulet.

ALL thaumaturge reactions share the same target limitation, as well as all Intensify effects for all Implements.

[breithauptclan]

You say that as though that somehow makes it feel better to choose between two bad options: ignore your implement reactions, or risk losing your Mortal Weakness benefits that you already earned with a successful roll earlier.

And there is still the ambiguity of intent of the rules concepts. Why is it not the intent of the Exploit Vulnerability and Sympathetic Vulnerabilities that if you succeed at the roll that all affected creatures are your target? I'm not arguing the case that the rules don't say that. What I am saying is that the way Mortal Weakness and the Sympathetic Vulnerabilities upgrade feat are presented somewhat implies that this was the goal. It just wasn't worded very well.

It falls into a similar rules hole like the free action to switch between implements. Since that is a free action, but one without a trigger, then if you have two implements with reactions then you have to keep track of which one is in-hand at the end of your turn. You can't use your free action to switch between them as part of your reaction ability of the implement that you aren't holding. RAW - yes. RAI - ehhh?

[Squiggit]

The psychology here is interesting. Passionately talking about 'nerfs' and 'loss' when we're discussing an implement working the same way it always does in every situation.

Quote:

Why is it not the intent of the Exploit Vulnerability and Sympathetic Vulnerabilities that if you succeed at the roll that all affected creatures are your target?

Probably specifically for this reason, since it would mean abilities that effect the person you use EV on would suddenly have multiple valid targets.

[breithauptclan]

Squiggit wrote:

The psychology here is interesting. Passionately talking about 'nerfs' and 'loss' when we're discussing an implement working the same way it always does in every situation.

It is the loss of Mortal Weakness that feels bad. As I mentioned earlier, spending the action to switch to the next werewolf or magma scorpion seems fine. Having to reroll Exploit Vulnerability that I am already benefiting from feels bad.

Squiggit wrote:

Quote:

Why is it not the intent of the Exploit Vulnerability and Sympathetic Vulnerabilities that if you succeed at the roll that all affected creatures are your target?

Probably specifically for this reason, since it would mean abilities that effect the person you use EV on would suddenly have multiple valid targets.

Just like Mortal Weakness already gives. And Sympathetic Vulnerabilities adds.

[Easl]

breithauptclan wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Yet, that last part is the RAW too.

Yes, but why?

There are plenty of things that are very much RAW and also don't make any sense. Such as being unable to swing a ghost touch greatsword at a ghost.

So why does this particular glitch in the rules not fall into the sucks to be you too much to be true category?

Initially I was on the side of "the core Thaumaturge mechanic has a long complicated wall of text. When the implements' mechanics were written, mistakes combining them with the core power were made." But rereading it, I'm not so sure. IMO Bell seems to want a singular foe, Weapon seems to want the whole werewolf group. All three write-ups use 'the target of your EV...' Amulet and Bell description uses "foe's" [singular] not "foes'" [plural, if it meant the werewolf group]. Sword does the same, but also says 'a creature' and 'a foe' in other places which makes it sound like it could apply to the werewolf group example.

I don't think having these implements' reactions apply to just the singular target is 'too bad to be true'. At this point, I would take that as RAW and RAI. But were I GMing a thaumaturge, and the players thought that was too restrictive, I wouldn't have any problem with the 'whole werewolf group' house rule for all three implements. Particularly since you only get one reaction per round anyway.

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

Just like Mortal Weakness already gives. And Sympathetic Vulnerabilities adds.

Neither Mortal Weakness nor Sympathetic Vulnerability provide any bonus to any implement or exploit vulnerability keyed ability. So not just like those at all.