| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I would allow reduced damage. Otherwise you end up with absurd situations like the low-level pupil unable to learn from their high-level master because the high-level master keeps knocking them unconscious on the first blow of their training bouts.
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.
Yeah, but you need to recognize the spell, unlike Confused Condition which, as a Condition, is supposed to be pretty much known by everyone.
Which of the following do you allow not to be applied, and why or why not if not all?
Precision damage
Attribute damage
Weapon specialization
Deadly/fatal
Other critical hit bonus damage
Runes
A flat number of damage points (separate from or in addition to specialization)
IMO for houseruling what I would allow to ignore and why:
About Deadly/fatal and critical hit. It's partially based in luck. I would allow to ignore it except nat 20. Because mistakes happens and you can hit where you don't want to hit.
I also don't allow to ignore rune. It's the weapon magical damage you cannot control it, make unarmed strikes instead. But I would make an exception to Handwraps because you not broke everything just because you a Strike rune in it.
Flat number will depend from its source.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.Yeah, but you need to recognize the spell, unlike Confused Condition which, as a Condition, is supposed to be pretty much known by everyone.
Our PFS GM decided that the target's boss did not need RK to decide to slap his subordinate back into action. He just used one action for the slap which dealt zero damage but was hostile enough to end the effect.
Confusion is in a weird spot. You basically need to use it against one enemy in a group (or heighten it to multitarget) so it isn't just losing actions but attacking its allies. That's hard to guarantee given the random targeting and short range, but I've tended to let distance be a factor in randomness at least.
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.
Does it? That interpretation seems heavily contested. It certainly isn't what the spell itself says, but there might be nested definitions of hostility.
Confusion is in a weird spot. You basically need to use it against one enemy in a group (or heighten it to multitarget) so it isn't just losing actions but attacking its allies. That's hard to guarantee given the random targeting and short range, but I've tended to let distance be a factor in randomness at least.
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.Does it? That interpretation seems heavily contested. It certainly isn't what the spell itself says, but there might be nested definitions of hostility.
Hostility is even wider than a Hostile Action, so the DM is doing what the designers should have done and defined it better. Hostility means nothing in PF2 as far as the rules go, so a DM could make screaming a harsh word at the creature break calm emotions.
A hostile action is definitely going to break it, not sure how else you can read hostility.
Which of the following do you allow not to be applied, and why or why not if not all?
Precision damage
Attribute damage
Weapon specialization
Deadly/fatal
Other critical hit bonus damage
Runes
A flat number of damage points (separate from or in addition to specialization)
Only precision damage. That is controllable character ability.
Can't runes be turned off? I can't remember as it doesn't come up at all.
If you crit, you crit. Accidents happen.
The rest I would not turn off. They can do nonlethal if they want to pull their punches and the take the penalty.
I view sneak attack as completely under the control of the character unlike say Rage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our PFS GM decided that the target's boss did not need RK to decide to slap his subordinate back into action. He just used one action for the slap which dealt zero damage but was hostile enough to end the effect.I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.Yeah, but you need to recognize the spell, unlike Confused Condition which, as a Condition, is supposed to be pretty much known by everyone.
Couldn’t you use a grapple action for much the same result?
Grapple wouldn’t work because damage is required.
I trust those allowing strength to be withheld from damage are also not adding it to the attack roll.
Confusion is in a weird spot. You basically need to use it against one enemy in a group (or heighten it to multitarget) so it isn't just losing actions but attacking its allies. That's hard to guarantee given the random targeting and short range, but I've tended to let distance be a factor in randomness at least.
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.Does it? That interpretation seems heavily contested. It certainly isn't what the spell itself says, but there might be nested definitions of hostility.Hostility is even wider than a Hostile Action, so the DM is doing what the designers should have done and defined it better. Hostility means nothing in PF2 as far as the rules go, so a DM could make screaming a harsh word at the creature break calm emotions.
A hostile action is definitely going to break it, not sure how else you can read hostility.
I dunno, I always ran it as not breaking if you attack a creature's ally. The fascinated specifically says the condition ends if the enemy is attacked, and Calm (Emotions) does not. That makes it one of the best spells in the game, but I know I'm not alone in that reading. I only recently became aware people felt otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confusion is in a weird spot. You basically need to use it against one enemy in a group (or heighten it to multitarget) so it isn't just losing actions but attacking its allies. That's hard to guarantee given the random targeting and short range, but I've tended to let distance be a factor in randomness at least.
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.Does it? That interpretation seems heavily contested. It certainly isn't what the spell itself says, but there might be nested definitions of hostility.Hostility is even wider than a Hostile Action, so the DM is doing what the designers should have done and defined it better. Hostility means nothing in PF2 as far as the rules go, so a DM could make screaming a harsh word at the creature break calm emotions.
A hostile action is definitely going to break it, not sure how else you can read hostility.
.
I dunno, I always ran it as not breaking if you attack a creature's ally. The fascinated specifically says the condition ends if the enemy is attacked, and Calm (Emotions) does not. That makes it one of the best spells in the game, but I know I'm not alone in that reading. I only recently became aware people felt otherwise.
What do you mean? Black Raven wrote one of your allies can hit you and break calm emotions. He didn't say it broke if someone attacked their allies. He means if you use calm emotions and someone succeeds at their save, they can break the effect on their other allies by taking a hostile action on them without doing damage like attempting to hit them without even landing any damage.
Not sure how you could read that differently.
Grapple wouldn’t work because damage is required.Well the no damage slap wouldn’t either then
I think there's some confusion (pun legitimately unintended) about which spell/condition we're talking about. Confusion ends on a successful a flat check after "damage from an attack or spell", but calm emotions ends on being "subject to hostility". For confusion, neither a slap nor grappling would work because they don't do damage. For calm emotions, I think grappling would be sufficiently hostile, but a slap would be a bit arguable. It's somewhat hostile, but it doesn't cause any actual damage or negative conditions so is it really hostile enough? It's certainly a matter of interpretation. If it ever came up for me, I might house-rule that a slap allows the slapper to make an Intimidate check against the slapee's Will DC to make it seem sufficiently scary, but YMMV.
Separately, I agree with Xenocrat's comment that if people want to remove the Strength from their damage rolls then they need to remove it from their attack rolls too.
Our PFS GM decided that the target's boss did not need RK to decide to slap his subordinate back into action. He just used one action for the slap which dealt zero damage but was hostile enough to end the effect.
Well, I assume your PFS GM will love when you will metagame monster spells and abilities like that.
Also, a hostile action is one that cause harm. Considering that slapping is enough is a bit of a stretch as it is not meant to cause any harm at all. Even Battle Medicine, that technically can cause harm, is rarely considered hostile.
So again, as the rogue in question who made the attack, I feel I understand this now. I spoke to the GM and we came to the conclusion that his ruling was very fait, if at first it seemed odd. My character stated I was going to shoot my crossbow at my ally's leg, which in fairness should've been at a -2 for a nonlethal attack but we all missed this. Making the attack was my choice, as was the weapon in question (agile, finesse, or ranged which triggers Sneak Attack), and opting to use nonlethal or not. That's on me. Also, if I had crit, or done so with a Deadly or Fatal weapon, that damage would've applies without question
Now, consider shooting into melee, or or otherwise hitting an ally accidentally with such a weapon- all damage would apply, yes? The possibility of lethal force due to the nature of the weapon (Fatal, Deadly, etc) or training (Sneak Attack, monk Powerful Fist etc.)is always there and a calculated risk accepted when I struck an ally. I'm good with this ruling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO for houseruling what I would allow to ignore and why:
Precision damage: Because a character is perfect fine to a char to ignore the weak points.
Attribute damage: Because everyone can control it's own strength.
Weapon specialization: Because anyone can control how efficient is its techniques using its unarmed/weapons. About Deadly/fatal and critical hit. It's partially based in luck. I would allow to ignore it except nat 20. Because mistakes happens and you can hit where you don't want to hit.
I also don't allow to ignore rune. It's the weapon magical damage you cannot control it, make unarmed strikes instead. But I would make an exception to Handwraps because you not broke everything just because you a Strike rune in it.
Flat number will depend from its source.
I'd even go so far as to say on a Nat 20 the attack does what the attacker wants it to do.
It's still gonna do some damage, but Fatal Non-lethal (now there's a combo I hadn't thought of) should give the player some agency.
Now, player in question has chimed in on how they've felt about this, so I think we're close to a wrap?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confusion is in a weird spot. You basically need to use it against one enemy in a group (or heighten it to multitarget) so it isn't just losing actions but attacking its allies. That's hard to guarantee given the random targeting and short range, but I've tended to let distance be a factor in randomness at least.
I feel Calm Emotions has it even worse. Even just a hostile action from one of the target's allies is enough to end the effect. It does not even need to inflict damage.Does it? That interpretation seems heavily contested. It certainly isn't what the spell itself says, but there might be nested definitions of hostility.Hostility is even wider than a Hostile Action, so the DM is doing what the designers should have done and defined it better. Hostility means nothing in PF2 as far as the rules go, so a DM could make screaming a harsh word at the creature break calm emotions.
A hostile action is definitely going to break it, not sure how else you can read hostility.
.
I dunno, I always ran it as not breaking if you attack a creature's ally. The fascinated specifically says the condition ends if the enemy is attacked, and Calm (Emotions) does not. That makes it one of the best spells in the game, but I know I'm not alone in that reading. I only recently became aware people felt otherwise.
What do you mean? Black Raven wrote one of your allies can hit you and break calm emotions. He didn't say it broke if someone attacked their allies. He means if you use calm emotions and someone succeeds at their save, they can break the effect on their other allies by taking a hostile action on them without doing damage like attempting to hit them without even landing any damage.
Not sure how you could read that differently.
.
I didn't read closely, is how. My bad Raven.That said, unless unkind free action words break it, you're back to enemies spending actions and possibly MAP to do it. And I'm not sure how they'd even know to do that without using Recall Knowledge or Sense Motive first, because at a glance it shouldn't look that different than sunned, slowed, or any of the other temporary things which prevent actions.
The bigger problem with the spell is that what the enemy can do instead of hostile actions is vague. By RAW, they could flee and go bring back reinforcements, but that doesn't mesh with the flavor of being too chill to fight right now.
|
|
So again, as the rogue in question who made the attack, I feel I understand this now. I spoke to the GM and we came to the conclusion that his ruling was very fait, if at first it seemed odd. My character stated I was going to shoot my crossbow at my ally's leg, which in fairness should've been at a -2 for a nonlethal attack but we all missed this. Making the attack was my choice, as was the weapon in question (agile, finesse, or ranged which triggers Sneak Attack), and opting to use nonlethal or not. That's on me. Also, if I had crit, or done so with a Deadly or Fatal weapon, that damage would've applies without question
Now, consider shooting into melee, or or otherwise hitting an ally accidentally with such a weapon- all damage would apply, yes? The possibility of lethal force due to the nature of the weapon (Fatal, Deadly, etc) or training (Sneak Attack, monk Powerful Fist etc.)is always there and a calculated risk accepted when I struck an ally. I'm good with this ruling.
Note that designers have worked hard for some time now to reduce the risk of a PC accidentally killing another one.
For example, even on a nat1, you do not hit your ally when shooting in melee.
I'd even go so far as to say on a Nat 20 the attack does what the attacker wants it to do.IMO for houseruling what I would allow to ignore and why:
Precision damage: Because a character is perfect fine to a char to ignore the weak points.
Attribute damage: Because everyone can control it's own strength.
Weapon specialization: Because anyone can control how efficient is its techniques using its unarmed/weapons. About Deadly/fatal and critical hit. It's partially based in luck. I would allow to ignore it except nat 20. Because mistakes happens and you can hit where you don't want to hit.
I also don't allow to ignore rune. It's the weapon magical damage you cannot control it, make unarmed strikes instead. But I would make an exception to Handwraps because you not broke everything just because you a Strike rune in it.
Flat number will depend from its source.
Then switch to NAT 1. There's no difference at all.
I have been a bit confused by this thread. Two thoughts.
1) Why would an ally use the blade of their dagger to hit a party member in general?
You would be a poor ally to strike a party member with the blade end.
It shows little concern for their safety. Even in fantasy/film depictions of this kind of thing the most you would do is hit them with the pommel.
That is improvised weapon territory but its the right way to do this, using the blade is something a frenemy might do, but not someone that doesn't want to actually harm you. If your bringing a blade end to an ally its going to be to do surgery not to knock the sense back in them.
Edit: stabbing the sense back in someone doesnt have the same ring to it.
2) I think it gets into a sort of computer simulation-ish kind of thing to make a rogue be unable to decide when they sneak attack. Its an ability that should be completely in their control of when they are or are not using it. This is the benefit of playing table top, you don't have to be slavishly applying an ability to the point of absurdity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been a bit confused by this thread. Two thoughts.
1) Why would an ally use the blade of their dagger to hit a party member in general?
You would be a poor ally to strike a party member with the blade end.
It shows little concern for their safety. Even in fantasy/film depictions of this kind of thing the most you would do is hit them with the pommel.
That is improvised weapon territory but its the right way to do this, using the blade is something a frenemy might do, but not someone that doesn't want to actually harm you. If your bringing a blade end to an ally its going to be to do surgery not to knock the sense back in them.
Edit: stabbing the sense back in someone doesnt have the same ring to it.2) I think it gets into a sort of computer simulation-ish kind of thing to make a rogue be unable to decide when they sneak attack. Its an ability that should be completely in their control of when they are or are not using it. This is the benefit of playing table top, you don't have to be slavishly applying an ability to the point of absurdity.
For 1, the rules around non-lethal damage with edged weapons are bizarre.
We landed on the RAW that an improvised weapon can't apply sneak attack outside of the Ruffian, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been a bit confused by this thread. Two thoughts.
1) Why would an ally use the blade of their dagger to hit a party member in general?
You would be a poor ally to strike a party member with the blade end.
It shows little concern for their safety. Even in fantasy/film depictions of this kind of thing the most you would do is hit them with the pommel.
That is improvised weapon territory but its the right way to do this, using the blade is something a frenemy might do, but not someone that doesn't want to actually harm you. If your bringing a blade end to an ally its going to be to do surgery not to knock the sense back in them.
Edit: stabbing the sense back in someone doesnt have the same ring to it.2) I think it gets into a sort of computer simulation-ish kind of thing to make a rogue be unable to decide when they sneak attack. Its an ability that should be completely in their control of when they are or are not using it. This is the benefit of playing table top, you don't have to be slavishly applying an ability to the point of absurdity.
For 1, the rules around non-lethal damage with edged weapons are bizarre.
We landed on the RAW that an improvised weapon can't apply sneak attack outside of the Ruffian, right?
I mean Improvised Weapons are Simple Weapons, and the GM determines what traits, if any, they have. If a GM gives an Improvised Melee weapon Agile or Finnesse, then Sneak Attack should apply without the need for your Rogue's Racket to be Ruffian.
But they could easily say "yeah the butt of your dagger is a d4 Improvised weapon with no traits" and then you wouldn't be able to apply Sneak Attack.
They could even say the butt of your dagger is a d4 nonlethal weapon so you're only taking the -2 from Improvised instead of -4 for improvised and nonlethal.
It's all up to the GM in the end.
The sticking point here (pun vigorously intended) is intent. Is dealing this extra damage a willful, intentional act? Critical hits etc are fate, Yada Yada, but precision implies... striking precisely- can this be done without intent? I feel like that's a no. This "wound" was reopened talking to the OP poster earlier.
That said, I fired a crossbow stating to shoot a leg. It should've been at a -2, but oopsie! Going forward, I feel like PCs shouldn't be co.ing at each other with pointy things unless we mean it!
Thirdly, I can totally see doing nonlethal damage with blades or even bullets (but a fleshwound!), but maybeit could be argued precision damage is the potential for massive damage (shoot, he didn't even TRY to dodge that!).
I'm good either way
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
New evidence:
Critical Specialization EffectsCertain feats, class features, weapon runes, and other effects can grant you additional benefits when you make a Strike with certain weapons and get a critical success. This is called a critical specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which weapon group your weapon belongs to, as listed below. You can always decide not to add the critical specialization effect of your weapon.