How many effects specifically end with hostile actions, anyway?
Spells: Invisibility, Sanctuary, Calm
Conditions: Fascinated
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Escape is hostile though. It is definitely not trying to be nice with your opponent and follow their wishes.But Escape isn't inherently attempting to cause harm.
You could be trying to Escape and run away.
By that definition almost ANYTHING PCs do around enemies is going to be hostile. I think that is way too broad.
I don't consider Escape a hostile action. You are not trying to harm your opponent even indirectly. To consider Escape as hostile is not different than consider someone fleeing as hostile action using same justification of its also "not trying to be nice with your opponent and follow their wishes".
|
I don't consider Escape a hostile action. You are not trying to harm your opponent even indirectly. To consider Escape as hostile is not different than consider someone fleeing as hostile action using same justification of its also "not trying to be nice with your opponent and follow their wishes".
Escape has more violent interaction than fleeing though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Escape when using unarmed attack rolls against a a creature grabbing to do it is certainly hostile.
Escaping from being bound by a rope is hard to see as hostile.
The inbetween case would be using acrobatics to slip out of an enemies grab. That doesn't seem harmful to them as much as its you slinking out of their grasp.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anytime this type of discussion comes up, because there aren't any ACTUAL rules in place to adjudicate it I've struggled to figure out "what is right" and I came to a decision and resigned myself to it since arguing about it is pointless. I'm not hoping to change anyone else's mind here but I'll give my 2 copper pieces.
Hostility is in the eye of the beholder and I'm not talking about GM fiat or table variation, I'm talking about the enemy or those who THINK you're an enemy.
If someone COULD or WOULD perceive your Actions as opposing their desires/will and they're in the mindset to stop you then basically EVERYTHING you could ever do even if it's as simple as taking a step toward them or rolling a conversational skill check like Diplomacy or Intimidate is and SHOULD be considered Hostile. Casting buffs on allies who are actively participating in combat is engaging in hostility, and yes, attempting to Escape is 1000% hostile, you're taking actions that oppose the will of your opponent.
Insulting, belittling, slandering, or defaming someone is hostile. Approaching someone silently so they don't know you're there is hostile. Merely existing in the same space as someone else who doesn't believe you have a right to be where you are or exist IS hostile, people see and experience this every day and are regularly in actual mortal danger if they don't act wisely and either ready to adopt a defensive posture, flee, or go on the offensive and two of those three is choosing to continue engaging in a conflict and participate in hostility.
Any and all effects that key off hostility are for all intents and purposes used by me as a player and in the games that I run as breaking the moment you do ANYTHING other than either try to flee, hide, or act 100% defensively to protect yourself from harm. Yes, that makes the effects that rely on the Hostile wording VERY tricky to use in combat but... that's the point, they're all QUITE powerful effects that if allowed to function while you're on the offense would not only tip the scales in your favor, they simply allow you carte blanche to take the scale and throw it in the trash.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insulting, belittling, slandering, or defaming someone is hostile. Approaching someone silently so they don't know you're there is hostile. Merely existing in the same space as someone else who doesn't believe you have a right to be where you are or exist IS hostile, people see and experience this every day and are regularly in actual mortal danger if they don't act wisely and either ready to adopt a defensive posture, flee, or go on the offensive and two of those three is choosing to continue engaging in a conflict and participate in hostility.
As you've said, you're not looking to change peoples' minds or anything, and if this is how you run your games, more power to you. But if I'm reading this right, this would mean you can't drink an invisibility potion to infiltrate a place without initiating combat, which is enough for me to hope I never play at your table and that you never play in mine.
For my part, my players and I hashed it out that an action is hostile if it does one or more of the following: 1) Requires an Attack Roll; 2) Deals damage; 3) Imposes a negative condition; 4) Imposes a penalty. For the most part this has served us well, if a weird situation comes up (Escape) we rule on it on the spot and move on (Escape isn't a hostile action; yes, even if the player has Contortionist)
And as for weird rules: special material ammunition, just because it came up in a recent discussion. The price is already pretty bad, but then there's the question of whether you need higher grades as your weapon improves? Or maybe not? We've no clue and haven't been able to find an answer.
I would not judge Escape as hostile as a DM unless it did damage as well.
I do not consider heals as hostile either.
I know they changed things in PF2, but I still tend to follow a more PF1 guidelines for hostile actions with some exceptions like using a summoned creature to attack someone is hostile in PF2. It must have a negative effect or boost the hostile actions of others towards a target like hasting a group to attack.
Escaping I view as a defensive act against a hostile action.
I also won't argue with someone that decides Escape is hostile. The lack of clear rules on hostile actions in PF2 pretty much leaves it up to the DM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always saw it as you get one hostile action out of that invisibility potion, the one that breaks it.
The stride or sneak to close in isnt the hostile action, the strike is. And if you make sneaking toward the person hostile then the character doesn't get the benefit of being invisible for that one strike that normally would break the invisibility spell.
For my part, my players and I hashed it out that an action is hostile if it does one or more of the following: 1) Requires an Attack Roll; 2) Deals damage; 3) Imposes a negative condition; 4) Imposes a penalty. For the most part this has served us well, if a weird situation comes up (Escape) we rule on it on the spot and move on (Escape isn't a hostile action; yes, even if the player has Contortionist)
It's a good way to deal with what is and what isn't an hostile action but notice that all this you mentioned are direct hostile actions the problem is that the rule includes indirect actions:
Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from using hostile actions, or the spell ends if a creature uses any hostile actions. A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action.
We was hoping that this could be clarified in remaster but this doesn't happened.
The current definition is very wide because it not defines what's harm another creature and not only this it also includes indirectly effects and put in the example they put also intentions (you know that a fireball into a crowd will be a hostile action because you know that fireball will hurt everyone in its AoE but open a door where a creature is locked without know that there's a creature locked there is not an hostile action so the inverse is also valid if thrown a fireball in a place where no-one will be hurt it wont be a hostile action and you wont loose your invisibility but if you open a door where a monster aggressive to everyone you loose you invisibility because you know that this creature will attack everyone like as you are activating a trap).Obs.: Notice that the rule doesn't mention attack anywhere only damage and harm so just have attack trait is insufficient to be considere a hostile action it also needs to harm directly or indirectly.
Because this very wide definition is also because I don't consider Escape an hostile action because unless you are restricted you don't really need to Escape to damage or harm some creature so it's not an action that will lead to direct or indirect harm or damage a criature, at last not in a grabed condition. But heal an ally that's fighting someone (specially if its an unconscious ally) could be considered as hostile action once your healing action is allowing your ally to keep fighting but if you heal if with the intention of both of you to flee its no more an hostile action.
In order to make this definition a bit more narrow you can also consider the keyword "action" so heal an ally not necessarily means that this healed ally will keeping attacking or not so you can consider that Cast a Heal Spell in an ally won't necessary means that this ally will automatically attack your opponents because of this and you can treat it in same situation of open a door that you don't know what's behind and ends freeing a monster. But off-course this will ignore the intention, because your intention to keep your allies healed probably is not only to make them alive but also as a way to defeat your opponents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For my part, my players and I hashed it out that an action is hostile if it does one or more of the following: 1) Requires an Attack Roll; 2) Deals damage; 3) Imposes a negative condition; 4) Imposes a penalty. For the most part this has served us well, if a weird situation comes up (Escape) we rule on it on the spot and move on (Escape isn't a hostile action; yes, even if the player has Contortionist)It's a good way to deal with what is and what isn't an hostile action but notice that all this you mentioned are direct hostile actions the problem is that the rule includes indirect actions.
I know, and while I understand that it'd be nice if this was clarified (especially if you do PFS), my group and I just ignore it. Only direct hostile actions matter, because if we start bringing in "indirect" into the mix it makes it more complicated for exactly no gain.
Still a weird rule though, so good for this thread (and also, for some clarification for those who can't house rule for any number of reasons).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know, and while I understand that it'd be nice if this was clarified (especially if you do PFS), my group and I just ignore it. Only direct hostile actions matter, because if we start bringing in "indirect" into the mix it makes it more complicated for exactly no gain.For my part, my players and I hashed it out that an action is hostile if it does one or more of the following: 1) Requires an Attack Roll; 2) Deals damage; 3) Imposes a negative condition; 4) Imposes a penalty. For the most part this has served us well, if a weird situation comes up (Escape) we rule on it on the spot and move on (Escape isn't a hostile action; yes, even if the player has Contortionist)It's a good way to deal with what is and what isn't an hostile action but notice that all this you mentioned are direct hostile actions the problem is that the rule includes indirect actions.
I agree with you and probably the best way to deal with hostile action is just consider the direct consequences of your actions but notice that this indirect is there for a reason. To prevent you to do things like Summon a creature and make it attack your enemies without loose your invisibility/sanctuary.
Curiously PF1 defines indirect harm better than PF2:
...The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
If you want that the stronger guy simply win so just don't roll at all just say "the strongest win" and roll only in case of both have same Str. But if you do so this probably would just be boring.
IMO you are forcing a problem/oddity in a situation where there's no reason to have a problem/oddity.
Yeah, I can ignore rules when they are odd, thanks for pointing out (<= sarcasm).
Most arm wrestling (or other Strength activities) competitions will be handled through an Athletism check, I don't know of any GM who just look at your Strength score and say that you have lost. There's actually no such rule in the book, it's not how the game is played.Long jump and Swimming are other examples of rules that lead to crazy results. Long Jump for example considers that someone should have a variation of up to 19 feet between the smallest jump they can perform and the longest... That's definitely crazy. Similarly for swimming: If you know how to swim you shouldn't need a check to swim in still water. If you don't know how to swim, you shouldn't also need a check to fail at swimming.
And so on...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know, and while I understand that it'd be nice if this was clarified (especially if you do PFS), my group and I just ignore it. Only direct hostile actions matter, because if we start bringing in "indirect" into the mix it makes it more complicated for exactly no gain.I agree with you and probably the best way to deal with hostile action is just consider the direct consequences of your actions but notice that this indirect is there for a reason. To prevent you to do things like Summon a creature and make it attack your enemies without loose your invisibility/sanctuary.
My main problem with ajudicating the rule is that I have a hard time figuring out what they intend the in-world trigger to be for breaking invisibility. I don't think the spell includes a monitoring AI trying to figure out if you have broken the "non-violence TOS" you agreed to when you cast the spell.
Earlier versions of D&D had invisibility break because of kinetic energy overcoming the cloaking power of invisibility, so that was always part of my innate understanding of the system which helped me develop rules of thumb.
In PF2E, I'm going with intent. The test I use is two part: did your action *actually* cause harm that you observed? If not Is the primary *intention* of the action to cause harm? If either of those are true then psychic feedback overcomes the ability of the spell to mask your presence. I can wrap my mind around and adjudicate the metaphysics of that.
I understand that might be too simulationist an approach for some, but I need the simulation layer so that I can make quick judgements about the model and explain it to people who aren't going to try and parse the code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want that the stronger guy simply win so just don't roll at all just say "the strongest win" and roll only in case of both have same Str. But if you do so this probably would just be boring.
IMO you are forcing a problem/oddity in a situation where there's no reason to have a problem/oddity.
Yeah, I can ignore rules when they are odd, thanks for pointing out (<= sarcasm).
Most arm wrestling (or other Strength activities) competitions will be handled through an Athletism check, I don't know of any GM who just look at your Strength score and say that you have lost. There's actually no such rule in the book, it's not how the game is played.
Long jump and Swimming are other examples of rules that lead to crazy results. Long Jump for example considers that someone should have a variation of up to 19 feet between the smallest jump they can perform and the longest... That's definitely crazy. Similarly for swimming: If you know how to swim you shouldn't need a check to swim in still water. If you don't know how to swim, you shouldn't also need a check to fail at swimming.
And so on...
I think you don't understand what I wanted to say.
I wanted to say that such things that are unrelated to combat have low rules support and can be easilly adjusted by GM to work in a more plausible way. What I suggested is based in the same idea of minimum proficiency used by trap and other skill checks but adjusted to str only.
For example many traps and APs skill checks have checks like "you must be expert/master/legendary" as requirements. I just pointed that a GM could make the same with a pure strength check like a arm wrestler a put a category requirement like "to able to compete with this guy you need to have +4 in your Str or will be impossible to win".
Another way to deal with it it's using the DC Adjustments table increasing/decreasing the DC based in the Str difference. Like for example if the Str bonus difference is just 1 point bellow a GM may ask an athletics check vs other athletics check and increase the DC with a +2 to represent the Str diference, and goes to +5 if it's 2 points, or +10 if its 3 points of diference.
There are a lot of ways to make an Arm Wrestling fair, interesting and fun and its up to GM to decide how it will do it because we don't have any Arm Wrestling rules defining how it have to work and thats why there's no oddity behind it unless you as GM want to just do a simple atletics check without worry too much about the str diference.
About swimming I think that it's in the same category of alphabetization. The game simply put every PC know how to read/write in every language that it knows but to try to understand some complex or encrypted thing you may need a society check. So all PCs (and most NPCs) know how to swim but only the most trained ones can deal with most hard conditions.
Weird thing with the armwrestling example … how do you explain variations in real-world contests? Indo agree that if the relevant scores are far enough apart, it’s no contest — a Str +0 cleric loses to his Str +4 barbarian friend - but at a certain point rolling does make sense,as when that cleric takes on the Str +1 rogue.
For hostile actions? Mmm, edge cases. I think they did want to do away with invisosummons this edition at least. For now, if I were GM, hard yes on stuff that does damage. Hard yes on Grab, Trip, Shove, Disarm. Soft no on Escape unless you’re using some damaging effect to do so. Summoning is explicitly hostile even if you’re just spamming skunks to spray sectors. And if you’re a skunk spraying would be hostile too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know, and while I understand that it'd be nice if this was clarified (especially if you do PFS), my group and I just ignore it. Only direct hostile actions matter, because if we start bringing in "indirect" into the mix it makes it more complicated for exactly no gain.I agree with you and probably the best way to deal with hostile action is just consider the direct consequences of your actions but notice that this indirect is there for a reason. To prevent you to do things like Summon a creature and make it attack your enemies without loose your invisibility/sanctuary.My main problem with ajudicating the rule is that I have a hard time figuring out what they intend the in-world trigger to be for breaking invisibility. I don't think the spell includes a monitoring AI trying to figure out if you have broken the "non-violence TOS" you agreed to when you cast the spell.
Earlier versions of D&D had invisibility break because of kinetic energy overcoming the cloaking power of invisibility, so that was always part of my innate understanding of the system which helped me develop rules of thumb.
In PF2E, I'm going with intent. The test I use is two part: did your action *actually* cause harm that you observed? If not Is the primary *intention* of the action to cause harm? If either of those are true then psychic feedback overcomes the ability of the spell to mask your presence. I can wrap my mind around and adjudicate the metaphysics of that.
I understand that might be too simulationist an approach for some, but I need the simulation layer so that I can make quick judgements about the model and explain it to people who aren't going to try and parse the code.
The problem of indirect harm is exactly this, you loose most of you capacity to rapidly judge what you can do and cannot do without broke your invisibility/sanctuary and also we have the problem that each player has it's own interpretation about what actions can do or not creating some divergency with the GM.
It's something that can easily open space to something like:
GM: Your action made you loose your invisibility
Player: Why!? I just opened a door?
GM: But this door will free a wild creature that will attack your enemies and you know that this creature is there.
Player: But I only opened it to flee!
GM: But this would result in a indirect hostile action vs your enemies.
Player: But...arh OK, so if I use an action to open the door, another to move inside and my 3rd to close it I will able to keep my invisibility?
GM: Err...
IMO this is an odd mechanic that the designers could made in a more clear way avoiding these many interpretation diferences that confuses players and breaks their strategies (because you don't have a predictable rule security governing it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember the character has to be aware they are doing harm with indirect harm.
It doesnt actually matter what the character intends to do if you as the GM inform the player this act would indirectly cause harm do you still want to do it? that is all it takes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) If I'm significantly faster than an enemy (say, 35 ft vs 25 ft) I can NEVER actually hit them in a chase unless I have reactive strike.
...or a reach weapon, or some appropriate move-and-attack ability, or....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you don't understand what I wanted to say.
No, you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't care about arm wrestling specifically, I just point out that the game doesn't handle properly tasks with low variability.
For example, I jump slightly beyond 3 meters if my memory serves me well and if I haven't lost too much (I don't jump in imperial). I jump slightly beyond 3 meters always. If you ask me to jump 3.5 meters I'll fail. If you ask me to jump 3 meters I'll succeed. No check needed. The game gives me 19 feet of difference betweeen my top jump and my worst jump, that's just crazy.
Similarly, if I make a swimming race, my score will be in a very small bracket. Unless I face opponents with a very close swimming ability, I will either always win or always lose. No check needed. Still, a swimming race will be sanctionned by an Athletics check, don't you agree?
Same with practical knowledge. For example, my knowledge of math is directly deductible from my level in math. You can't for example know probabilities if you don't know basic calculus. So if you tell me that you are an Expert at math (whatever level Expert means in the context of math) I can tell you the amount of knowledge you have quite precisely. So for most math problems, you'll either be able to solve them easily or be totally unable to solve them, there should only be a check if it's a problem that is exactly in your level bracket. That should be the same in PF2 in the case of practical knowledge.
The game inability to handle low variability tasks generates weird situations like a bad swimmer/jumper beating a good swimmer/jumper at swimming/jumping, a master in Crafting being unable to repair what someone just Trained could or someone just Trained at Crafting being able to repair what should be repaired by a Master at Crafting.
So, sure, you can proficiency gate like crazy: "This is an Expert level task, you can't succeed if you are not at least Expert and can't fail if you are at least Master". But that's not really supported by the game nor done by anyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I get what you are saying - and for the most part agree. There is a hole between being unable to do things (proficiency gated tasks) and having to rely on luck and chance in order to succeed (rolling a d20) that PF2 doesn't fill very well. Assurance and Unmistakable Lore try to fill that gap with varying success.
However...
Same with practical knowledge. For example, my knowledge of math is directly deductible from my level in math. You can't for example know probabilities if you don't know basic calculus. So if you tell me that you are an Expert at math (whatever level Expert means in the context of math) I can tell you the amount of knowledge you have quite precisely. So for most math problems, you'll either be able to solve them easily or be totally unable to solve them, there should only be a check if it's a problem that is exactly in your level bracket. That should be the same in PF2 in the case of practical knowledge.
Math is a very strange example to put forward. I don't think it suits your argument very well at all.
There are a lot of different fields of math to begin with. Knowing advanced Calculus does not mean that you can do advanced Statistics or Trigonometry very well at all.
And even in the same field there are different complexities of problems that are harder or easier to handle. I can handle the probabilities of rolling one d20 for a PF2 skill check of 1d20+bonus vs DC. But I can't handle the probabilities of a PF1 skill roll-off of 1d20+bonus vs 1d20+bonus. I have also seen people who can solve quadratic equations as long as the result stays in whole numbers. As soon as the correct answer has fractions, then they are unable to do the same type of problem.
In addition, there is still quite a bit of variability in ability of solving problems that a person is capable of doing. Being tired, distracted, or otherwise not performing at their best can result in getting a math problem wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I said that GM can compensate using other tools like Victory Points Subsystem. This helps to mitigate the effects of high randomness made by d20 rolls. How more points are needed more the bonus makes difference yet you still keep some chance to the weakest to win.
It's the thing that I said before. Imagine that 2 players are an Arm Wrestling competition for fun. As GM you may decide that proficiency and experience is not a relevant factor here so you will just do a pure Str check (d20 + Str vs opponent 10+Str) but you immediately notice that player Str diference is too high (one player is a martial with +4 in Str while the other is a spellcaster with no Str bonus) but you don't want to just decide without checks based in who is more stronger because it's unfun yet you don't want that the luck becomes a too relevant factor. So you will decide that they need to roll this using a Victory Points Subsystem and decided that who get 10 victory points first wins!
In such situation is VERY unlikely that the weakest one with a so high Str difference wins the competition yet it will win some rolls and still have some chance some it can compete trying to get luck.
And what happens if the weakest wins? Its not have verisimilitude and makes no sense!? Well... not exactly, to represent the luck factor you may say that the stronger player some mistake like elbow slipping off the table or a cramp or other severe muscle pain caused by damage to the arm done in a previous fight or that the strongest player committed a fault and was disqualified. It's easily to create a reason to represent the luck aspect just make one and go on.
That's the why I said that non-combat checks that are weaked ruled by the system can be easily adjusted by GM to make sense for the situation. It's a GM work IMO.
Math is a very strange example to put forward. I don't think it suits your argument very well at all.
Completely tangential discussion. But I think you get what I mean: knowledge is built on top of knowledge, so you have to know some pieces of knowledge before getting to higher level of knowledgeability. Similarly, some pieces of knowledge are easier to acquire than others, so even if you don't need trigonometry to perform advanced statistics, chances are high that you'll still learn trigonometry before advanced statistics.
That's why I said that GM can compensate using other tools like Victory Points Subsystem.
So if during a combat the Barbarian wants to jump over a schasm you'll start using the victory point system to represent that action?
And what happens if the weakest wins? Its not have verisimilitude and makes no sense!? Well... not exactly, to represent the luck factor you may say that the stronger player some mistake like elbow slipping off the table or a cramp or other severe muscle pain caused by damage to the arm done in a previous fight or that the strongest player committed a fault and was disqualified. It's easily to create a reason to represent the luck aspect just make one and go on.
That's clearly represented by critical failures/successes. I don't speak about them (they are much more common than in real life but they make the game funny also).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if during a combat the Barbarian wants to jump over a schasm you'll start using the victory point system to represent that action?
No. Long Jump is there for this. As said by Leap action a barbarian that have 25 ft (7.5 meters) speed can leap a schasm up to 5 ft (1,5m) if it has 30ft (9m) of speed can leap if the gap is higher you use Long Jump default rules.
For improved jumps we also have the Quick Jump, Powerful Leap and Cloud Jump feats.And what happens if the weakest wins? Its not have verisimilitude and makes no sense!? Well... not exactly, to represent the luck factor you may say that the stronger player some mistake like elbow slipping off the table or a cramp or other severe muscle pain caused by damage to the arm done in a previous fight or that the strongest player committed a fault and was disqualified. It's easily to create a reason to represent the luck aspect just make one and go on.That's clearly represented by critical failures/successes. I don't speak about them (they are much more common than in real life but they make the game funny also).
When you are using Victory Points Subsystem usually the critical failures usually are mitigated too, representing you loosing a point while critical success usually gives an extra point.
Also the failure and critical failure description is up to GM, some checks don't get critical effects at all. And get a cramp it's not so critical. You don't broke your arm at all. :PArm wrestling is very clearly not just pure strength. I'd resolve it as opposing athletics checks.
If someone has ranks in Armwrestling Lore (which I'd take to mean specific knowledge about Armwrestling) I'd give them some sort of advantage.
Pathfinder doesn't really let one specialize in niche non-combat applications of a skill, so that's where I'd use lore to plug the hole.
I agree (but not with the opposing checks). But I'm restricting to pure Str checks because SuperBid said that they are a pure Str check but I think there's some technique too whats makes valid to use athletics instead (yet a still recommend to Victory Points Subsystem too, it's more fun an diminishes the luck randomness).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Light trait says that it can counteract magical darkness effects. But only if you can target the darkness effect with the Light trait effect - and no Light spells have 'spell effect' as their target like Dispel Magic does.
So only the other option is actually available - effects that automatically counteract magical darkness that they pass through such as Searing Light.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To bring another fun rule oddity to the table, you can shoot a bow at somone on the other side of an obscuring mist without issue. The mist only conceals when the attacker, defender, or both are in the mist.
The spell doesn't, but is there a more general Line of Sight rule that does?
I would probably rule in the moment that it provides Cover (+2 AC).
I'll be honest here -- at this point I've played so many systems that have roughly similar LOS rules that I don't try and keep them straght any more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To bring another fun rule oddity to the table, you can shoot a bow at somone on the other side of an obscuring mist without issue. The mist only conceals when the attacker, defender, or both are in the mist.The spell doesn't, but is there a more general Line of Sight rule that does?
Not really.
By RAW, only solid barriers block line of sight. A patch of Obscuring Mist wouldn't.
There are plenty of rules that hint that Perception going through a patch of area that reduces vision should reduce vision even if the perceiver and the target are not in the area of effect. But none that I have found state it outright.
I would probably rule in the moment that it provides Cover (+2 AC).
I'd go with Concealed and the DC 5 flat check.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you just have to use common sense to apply things the rules don't cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really.
The section you linked mentions two conditions, why are you saying there is only one?
The section you linked mentions two conditions, why are you saying there is only one?
Not really.
To clarify: the other condition referenced is 'you can precisely sense the area'.
Like I said - it hints at having an intervening area of obscured vision cause obscured vision.
The pedantic RAW reading is that you are capable of precisely sensing the area that the target is in. They are not in the area of effect of Obscuring Mist. The area between the observer and the target is not checked by the rule except to see if there is a solid barrier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if you skip over the perception rules, which specifically call out being obscured by the environment as a potential impediment to precise senses.
So the 'pedantic RAW' is more that this is entirely within the GM's purview, because 'obscured by the environment' has no strict rules definition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you just have to use common sense to apply things the rules don't cover.
I would certainly agree with that.
But I thought the point of this thread was to point out the odd rules holes and strange edge cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you just have to use common sense to apply things the rules don't cover.I would certainly agree with that.
But I thought the point of this thread was to point out the odd rules holes and strange edge cases.
Your right and seeing clearly through a magical mist to the other side of it certainly fits on this thread.
Is a schasm where two people are on such opposites sides of an argument that a giant pit forms between them, and they have to decide how, whether, where, when and why to jump AND which subsystem is appropriate to use to determine the outcome?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules that I consider strange? That's easy.
The fact that there are constructs and undead in the world (ancestries and versatile heritages) that can bleed, drown, get poisoned, die of starvation, and almost anything else that living creatures have to deal with. It goes against absolutely everything that makes a construct a construct and an undead an undead. *rolls eyes then spits on the ground*
However...
That Poppets can bleed.
I for one just love the idea of a poppet bleeding red stuffing or pink yarn or something. Or the idea of a diseased poppet having lesions made of discolored cloth patches that appeared overnight, raised postules made of their primary material (cloth, wood, whatever) that burst or ooze confetti, vomit made of yarn or silly string. X'D
Even better is the REAL doctor who has to "play doctor" in order to cure the poppet's disease!
God I love poppets. Whoever wrote them into Pathfinder deserves a big "thank you" hug.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules that I consider strange? That's easy.
The fact that there are constructs and undead in the world (ancestries and versatile heritages) that can bleed, drown, get poisoned, die of starvation, and almost anything else that living creatures have to deal with. It goes against absolutely everything that makes a construct a construct and an undead an undead. *rolls eyes then spits on the ground*
Yes I understand the rational due the balance but still very strange and completely breaks the immersion to have an automaton or a skeleton becoming poisoned.
My hopes is that in some future PF3 (or even now for SF2) the designers put in the ancestries balance that some ancestries will get non-living immunities and balance all living ancestries to compensate this in their chassis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules that I consider strange? That's easy.
The fact that there are constructs and undead in the world (ancestries and versatile heritages) that can bleed, drown, get poisoned, die of starvation, and almost anything else that living creatures have to deal with. It goes against absolutely everything that makes a construct a construct and an undead an undead. *rolls eyes then spits on the ground*
Yes I understand the rational due the balance but still very strange and completely breaks the immersion to have an automaton or a skeleton becoming poisoned.
My hopes is that in some future PF3 (or even now for SF2) the designers put in the ancestries balance that some ancestries will get non-living immunities and balance all living ancestries to compensate this in their chassis.
Aye!
|
|
1) My horse is slower in combat than most PCs (2 x 40 is less than 3x30)The math seems to hold here. Based on a quick check through the Player Core, most ancestries have Speeds of 25 feet (only exceptions were the dwarves with 20 feet and elves with 30 feet).
3x25=75 is slower than the horse mount's 2x40=80. Dwarves get even left further behind (3 x 20 = 60) but Elves can outrun them (3 x 30 = 90).
At first level, sure.
But fleet is a pretty common choice, grabbing a wand of tailwind is pretty common, quite a few classes have speed increases either baked in or readily available, boots of speed are available, etc.
In my experience by about level 8 or so most characters (Even the ones in plate mail) are going substantially faster than 25 feet a round. The biggest exceptions likely spell casters who just don't really need the speed as much
|
|
1) My horse is slower in combat than most PCs (2 x 40 is less than 3x30)The math seems to hold here. Based on a quick check through the Player Core, most ancestries have Speeds of 25 feet (only exceptions were the dwarves with 20 feet and elves with 30 feet).
3x25=75 is slower than the horse mount's 2x40=80. Dwarves get even left further behind (3 x 20 = 60) but Elves can outrun them (3 x 30 = 90).
At first level, sure.
But fleet is a pretty common choice, grabbing a wand of tailwind is pretty common, quite a few classes have speed increases either baked in or readily available, boots of speed are available, etc.
In my experience by about level 8 or so most characters (Even the ones in plate mail) are going substantially faster than 25 feet a round. The biggest exceptions likely spell casters who just don't really need the speed as much
My Cavern elf Champion of Torag wearing a full plate, a metal shield and a Large Warhammer (MC Giant Barbarian) has a speed of 50 and many abilities and items dealing with jumping, including Raging Athlete for Climb speed and Swim speed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
At first level, sure.
But fleet is a pretty common choice, grabbing a wand of tailwind is pretty common, quite a few classes have speed increases either baked in or readily available, boots of speed are available, etc.
In my experience by about level 8 or so most characters (Even the ones in plate mail) are going substantially faster than 25 feet a round. The biggest exceptions likely spell casters who just don't really need the speed as much
The way I see it, if your PCs are covered in speed-boosting magic, and your horses *aren't*, then the whole thing gets a lot less weird.