Vapor form prohibits taking any action with the Attack trait.
Escape has the Attack trait.
So if I cast vapor form on an ally who is grappled, restrained, or otherwise held, I've actually prevented their escape, rather than aided in it?
That doesn't seem right to me. They can slip through small cracks, but can't slip through their bonds or the grasp of an enemy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, per RAW, yeah. vapor form is overall a pretty bad spell: you essentially can't do anything worthwile except escape very slowly. Given that you still have an AC and you only get physical resistance and not immunity I think the idea is you're obviously still solid enough to be attacked, grappled etc.
Or at least, I think so. I tried looking to see if "amorphous" was some kind of trait (since Tempest Form uses the same terminology) but it appears to be purely descriptive. So yeah unfotunately while you're in this form you can be grappled and whatnot and will be unable to escape.
I'm SO houseruling that at my table, if that's the case.
Ghosts also have an AC but can't be grappled. This may be a false equivalence (because unlike with the incorporeal trait, nothing about vapor form specifically gives you immunity to things like grapple) but I rather imagine incorporeal AC/resistance to being 'thin' enough that things can pass through your body, but just dense enough that something moving at speed can displace a chunk of essence you'd consider vital to your wellbeing. This theory would seem to offer sufficient narrative logic for vapour form as well, albeit again with no mechanical support beyond "its what (I think) would realistically happen", as shaky as that argument often is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm SO houseruling that at my table, if that's the case.
Probably for the best.
This feels like another case where the dev who wrote Vapor Form didn't account for what the Attack trait actually means - that the action interacts with MAP. They wanted to use it as a shortcut for the list of hostile, damage dealing actions. But the list of hostile, damage dealing actions doesn't match up perfectly with the list of actions with the Attack trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would absolutely not allow anyone to grapple vapor so not being able to escape would be a non issue at my table.
If the form can move its entirety through a tiny crack then it can do so with ease through the arms or hands or tentacles of a creature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would absolutely not allow anyone to grapple vapor so not being able to escape would be a non issue at my table.
If the form can move its entirety through a tiny crack then it can do so with ease through the arms or hands or tentacles of a creature.
I was thinking more like rescuing an ally from shackles, a noose, or some other physical impediment by casting VF on them.
I would absolutely not allow anyone to grapple vapor so not being able to escape would be a non issue at my table.
If the form can move its entirety through a tiny crack then it can do so with ease through the arms or hands or tentacles of a creature.
I was thinking more like rescuing an ally from shackles, a noose, or some other physical impediment by casting VF on them.
Lol. wizards dont do daggers.
Sometimes the rules that apply change with the situation.
Once a player is in vapor form grappling and restraining rules dont mean anything. what is being grabbed or shackled or tied up exactly at that point.
if vapor wants to move in a direction it just does it as long as a theres at least a tiny crack to move through. the vaporous form is amorphous so it doesn't have defined dimensions and features that can be restrained like legs arms or a body center mass. it just takes up as little space as it needs to move in any direction the vapor chooses.
I think this is one of the few situations when the descriptive text is as important as the rules text in the spell. It falls under the TBTBT rule. You are now a vapor. You cannot be grabbed, grappled or restrained, as any gap is large enough to slip through.
It's already a weak spell, we don't need to make it any weaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It falls under the TBTBT rule.
This isn't a thing. Ambiguous Rules mentions "too good to be true" but not "too bad to be true".
Ambiguous Rules: "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn't work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed."
So it can fall under "problematic repercussions" or doesn't "work as intended", but it being bad doesn't.
Ambiguous Rules mentions "too good to be true" but not "too bad to be true".
I have seen you state this several times, but the distinction has always seemed moot to me.
I think this helps a lot to understand what you are meaning:
So it can fall under "problematic repercussions" or doesn't "work as intended", but it being bad doesn't.
If I reword that into my phrasing, does this still match up with what you are meaning?
"Rejecting a RAW ruling on a weak option needs to be both ambiguous and be so bad that the option is nearly unusable. Being a weak option is not, on its own, sufficient to require changing the obvious rules-as-written reading."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just cannot and will not condone vapor grabbing.
I have seen you state this several times, but the distinction has always seemed moot to me.
I'm pointing out that the phrase 'too bad to be true' never appears in the rules so that someone doesn't go looking for it and then I point out where rules that might apply are found.
If I reword that into my phrasing, does this still match up with what you are meaning?
"Rejecting a RAW ruling on a weak option needs to be both ambiguous and be so bad that the option is nearly unusable. Being a weak option is not, on its own, sufficient to require changing the obvious rules-as-written reading."
No. A rule could be totally unusable and not fall under the rule Ambiguous Rules if it's not disruptive to the game: For instance, an unusable item just requires not using the item instead of reworking it. IMO, "problematic repercussions" is more aimed at exploits or unintended rules interactions and not a catch-all for unliked rules.
Doesn't work as intended really requires insight from those making the rules to know it: for instance, take the spell in question, vapor form. It's a debate over escaping with vapor form. It seems to make sense that mist could just float away through the grasp and it's easy to say that should be the intent but then someone else could point out that that same mist can somehow be grappled in the first place, meaning the intent that normal combat rules apply to it. I'm not sure how anyone outside the game devs can say which way the intent was intended to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone complaining about grappling vapor, but no one's there to defend you when you become exceptionally vulnerable to crits by turning into fog.
Accept this is a door/window bypass spell with certain aesthetic features and punishing defensive/offensive costs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen you state this several times, but the distinction has always seemed moot to me.I'm pointing out that the phrase 'too bad to be true' never appears in the rules so that someone doesn't go looking for it and then I point out where rules that might apply are found.
I'm pretty sure you know my response to that one already. That while the literal phrase 'too bad to be true' doesn't appear, the concept does. A rule citation doesn't have to be a literal quote any more than it needs to be a page reference number or AoN link. A summary or shorthand phrase of the rule can still be a valid rule citation.
A rule could be totally unusable and not fall under the rule Ambiguous Rules if it's not disruptive to the game: For instance, an unusable item just requires not using the item instead of reworking it. IMO, "problematic repercussions" is more aimed at exploits or unintended rules interactions and not a catch-all for unliked rules.
If an item is entirely unusable in any circumstance, then it clearly doesn't work as intended. I think that is a bad example.
I suspect that you have a valid stand on this, but I still don't fully understand it. So I don't know exactly how much I agree with it.
So far all I know is that I do agree with the sentiment that the Ambiguous Rules rule shouldn't be used in cases where a rule is simply disliked or perceived to be below standard power level. If a feat/item/class feature/other rule is sub-par and disliked, feel free to houserule it due to the First Rule - but the Ambiguous Rules rule has a higher bar to clear before it can be invoked.
-----
In this particular case, I think the Vapor Form spell does fall into the Ambiguous Rules rule because it doesn't work as intended. It tries to restrict hostile actions by saying you can't "cast spells, activate items, or use actions that have the attack or manipulate trait." Which has the unintended consequence of not allowing escaping from bonds or shackles because Escape has the attack trait, and it doesn't prevent Scare to Death because it doesn't meet any of those restrictions. I'm not even sure that it would prevent using Kineticist Impulses either since those aren't spells. They might have the manipulate trait though - I haven't checked before posting this.
Edit: found a couple of other, better, examples for actions that should be prevented by Vapor Form - but aren't. Elemental Heart Dwarf: Energy Emanation and Kobold Breath.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Accept this is a door/window bypass spell with certain aesthetic features...
That's why I usually take it.
Unfortunately, per RAW, yeah. vapor form is overall a pretty bad spell: you essentially can't do anything worthwile except escape very slowly. Given that you still have an AC and you only get physical resistance and not immunity I think the idea is you're obviously still solid enough to be attacked, grappled etc.
Or at least, I think so. I tried looking to see if "amorphous" was some kind of trait (since Tempest Form uses the same terminology) but it appears to be purely descriptive. So yeah unfotunately while you're in this form you can be grappled and whatnot and will be unable to escape.
I never use it as it is just not good enough for what its stated purpose is but now I've just downgraded it to a Trap option in my Spell Guide. Only take it if your GM is going to allow it to work.
That while the literal phrase 'too bad to be true' doesn't appear, the concept does.
And one of my points is that there isn't the "the literal phrase 'too bad to be true'" when someone posts "the TBTBT rule": it's just confusing for newer people when someone means the Ambiguous Rules rule. There are some really bad rules [IMO] and intended so [IMO], the game really doesn't have a too bad to be true rule [IMO] so that is a secondary point. For instance, the Thaumaturge has a rule that is WORSE than useless, forcing a feat that I find actively detrimental to play: I find it too bad to be true but it's 100% intended and functional.
A summary or shorthand phrase of the rule can still be a valid rule citation.
That only works if everyone that could possibly view the post understands the "summary or shorthand phrase", especially when said shorthand never appears in the text.
If an item is entirely unusable in any circumstance, then it clearly doesn't work as intended. I think that is a bad example.
Would functionally unusable be better? IMO, it's only when said uselessness causes an actual problem in the game that there is a problem. ;)
In this particular case, I think the Vapor Form spell does fall into the Ambiguous Rules rule because it doesn't work as intended. It tries to restrict hostile actions by saying you can't "cast spells, activate items, or use actions that have the attack or manipulate trait." Which has the unintended consequence of not allowing escaping from bonds or shackles because Escape has the attack trait, and it doesn't prevent Scare to Death because it doesn't meet any of those restrictions. I'm not even sure that it would prevent using Kineticist Impulses either since those aren't spells. They might have the manipulate trait though - I haven't checked before posting this.
I would argue it doesn't fall into it as it specifically restricts a whole lot of non-hostile action Interact action meaning you can't pick up an item, open a door or the like so it seems perfectly in line that you can't throw off an attacker: the odd thing is that someone can grapple you in the first place and until you overcome that weirdness, I don't see Escape as the ambiguous part.
Old man yells at grapples cloud.
So it can fall under "problematic repercussions"
I mean that's exactly what TBTBT is.
I mean that's exactly what TBTBT is.
So it can fall under "problematic repercussions"
Agree to disagree: IMO, bad in and of itself isn't problematic. All bad means is it isn't a good option. A 1d4 advanced weapon without any properties might be seen as TBTBT but it has no "problematic repercussions". It works and doesn't impact any other rules; it's JUST a bad option.
If something being mechanically almost unusable because it's so terribly written or designed isn't "problematic repercussions" I don't see what possibly could be.
Like, idk, saying "It's not problematic it's just bad" is a statement I can't wrap my head around because being terrible is problematic. You are describing the problem when saying there's no problem.
It looks like many air elementals aren't immune to grabbed either, even the ones made of air.
If something being mechanically almost unusable because it's so terribly written or designed isn't "problematic repercussions" I don't see what possibly could be.
No one is forced to take it and it causes no side cases or interactions with other rules that interfere with the game... IMO, not problematic as you just don't pick bad options if you are worried about them being bad. Eschew Materials was always a bad feat, for instance, but it being bad brought no "problematic repercussions": you just didn't pick it. Bad, in and of itself isn't problematic.
Like, idk, saying "It's not problematic it's just bad" is a statement I can't wrap my head around because being terrible is problematic. You are describing the problem when saying there's no problem.
Bad rules shouldn't be made but again, it's not problematic for the individual game; a crappy cantrip/weapon/feat/ect just means don't pick it. It's a problem for the DEV's if something is unintentionally bad but it's not for individual games as, once again, no one has to use it. Now if someone wants to fix it with a houserule, go for it but I don't see it in the same light as fixing an exploit.
IMO, "problematic repercussions" are pretty much for the TGTBT rules, where someone WANTS to use them and some combo means it's doing much better than intended. In this case it actually causes "problematic repercussions" as it actually sees people wanting to use it in the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would simply rule that if become vapor while being grabbed or restrained, you immediately escape unless whatever is grabbing/restraining you has the ability to hold on to vapor for some reason (like you are being restrained inside of a large glass bottle with a stopper).
Graystone is saying that as long as no one picks the terrible thing, it won't be in the game? What about elements of the game the player cannot choose?
Like loot. You can't decide what loot you find in a dungeon, so if your 7th level party finds a rank 4 scroll of vapor form, then you're just getting cheated out of wealth by the game unless the spell vapor form can be useful sometimes. If it's truly useless, then it exists only to be sold, which means you're only getting half the value because the full value counted against the amount of loot the GM is expected to give you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thing that the graystone is putting in comparison with TGTBT where you have a thing that could be exploited to broke the game or get too strong benefits. Due this spell could be avoidable in order to take other better spells it doesn't have the same impact.
Anyway Vapor Form isn't one of the best spells IMO. It's basically an infiltration focused spell that allow a char to infiltrate in some area (sliping through tiny cracks). Outside this context the spell wasn't really incredible at all. You can use it to try to flee too but the speed is pretty bad it's far from other spells that could be used for escape. Being still able to get grabbed and unable to flee is ugly but it's not like it was the primary escape option for most casters.
I'm not against some homebrew to make it semi-incorporeal becoming immune to Strength-based checks but the best that this will do is a polymorph alternative to Unfettered Movement that prevents you to use attack and manipulate actions. It will still not becoming some good spell at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would simply rule that if become vapor while being grabbed or restrained, you immediately escape unless whatever is grabbing/restraining you has the ability to hold on to vapor for some reason (like you are being restrained inside of a large glass bottle with a stopper).
I argue that the fact that vapor is described as being amorphous makes this the RAW interpretation.
This is also true of any ooze that is amorphous. They cannot be grabbed or tripped or shoved because when you do you just push in part of them and the rest pushes around your hands. its amorphous so theres nothing to grab onto either.The use of that word shows the intent and I dont need any other signal to say you cant restrain them without restraining the entire form somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would simply rule that if become vapor while being grabbed or restrained, you immediately escape unless whatever is grabbing/restraining you has the ability to hold on to vapor for some reason (like you are being restrained inside of a large glass bottle with a stopper).I argue that the fact that vapor is described as being amorphous makes this the RAW interpretation.
This is also true of any ooze that is amorphous. They cannot be grabbed or tripped or shoved because when you do you just push in part of them and the rest pushes around your hands. its amorphous so theres nothing to grab onto either.
The use of that word shows the intent and I dont need any other signal to say you cant restrain them without restraining the entire form somehow.
I agree, especially re: oozes. And I think some pseudo-immunities like this aren't listed because in a fantasy game there might be some shenanigan that makes "tripping an ooze" make sense whereas by default it makes zero sense. A sidebar re: such bodily interpretation would be welcome though. (And IMO Trip would utterly nullify most mindless, melee-based oozes with their slow speeds and abysmal Ref saves.)
As for Vapor Form, I think the question is how vaporous is it?
Since it follows from Gaseous Form, I'd think yeah, you're a cloud and no more need be said than you're amorphous. Neither do strict rules need to be laid out since they might be used as arguments against magic & airtight containers and other situations where adjudication > legalism.
Graystone is saying that as long as no one picks the terrible thing, it won't be in the game? What about elements of the game the player cannot choose?
Like loot. You can't decide what loot you find in a dungeon, so if your 7th level party finds a rank 4 scroll of vapor form, then you're just getting cheated out of wealth by the game unless the spell vapor form can be useful sometimes. If it's truly useless, then it exists only to be sold, which means you're only getting half the value because the full value counted against the amount of loot the GM is expected to give you.
What is different than loot that is a specific weapon that no one can use? Or a scroll that's on no one's spell list? Or a specific heavy armor and no one wears heavy? That is a problem with loot distribution in general, and NOT a specific bad spell. If a DM isn't tailoring loot to the group, you're going to get items no one wants.
Secondly, the spell in question, Vapor Form, ISN'T useless: you gain resistance 8 to physical damage and immunity to precision damage [great if attacked by sneak attacks], gain slow fly Speed and can slip through tiny cracks for 5 minutes. Even if it only gave the fly and slip through tiny cracks and it has uses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be used for all sorts of things:
It's also very useful if you're having a party challenge to see who can get crit the most. Fastest way to remove your armor in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also very useful if you're having a party challenge to see who can get crit the most. Fastest way to remove your armor in the game.
Yeah, I don't really consider it a combat spell.
Also, aren't most spellcaaters using this unlikely to be wearing armor anyways?
To be fair, all of the previous [Combat] Form spells prohibited all other forms of Attack actions as well, so it doesn't surprise me that this is held over from that.
It even deactivates the fundamental runes from explorer's clothing, since those as well are item bonuses to AC, so even for unarmoured casters it's still a big AC and saves debuffIt's also very useful if you're having a party challenge to see who can get crit the most. Fastest way to remove your armor in the game.Yeah, I don't really consider it a combat spell.
Also, aren't most spellcaaters using this unlikely to be wearing armor anyways?
Yeah, I think the best person for this would be a monk. Highest unarmored and they keep their land movement speed [to move from cover to cover].
Second, I'm not sure it would affect unarmored AC's/saves as the unarmored 'armors' go out of their way to say they aren't armor* and the spell only affects armor. It seems to me those normally using their unarmored AC's wouldn't be affected by the spells reduction to armors.
* "Clothing isn't armor"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If something being mechanically almost unusable because it's so terribly written or designed isn't "problematic repercussions" I don't see what possibly could be.No one is forced to take it and it causes no side cases or interactions with other rules that interfere with the game... IMO, not problematic as you just don't pick bad options if you are worried about them being bad. Eschew Materials was always a bad feat, for instance, but it being bad brought no "problematic repercussions": you just didn't pick it. Bad, in and of itself isn't problematic.
Personally, that feels like you're holding 'problematic' up to a very high standard if it needs to impact the whole game itself. If someone wants to use an option and cannot because it doesn't function, that is a repercussion of the rule that is a problem for my table, and I'm happy to make changes to the rule on the basis of that repercussion. Either way, the whole point of the Ambiguous Rules heading is to make clear to GMs that you don't need to use a seemingly-RAW interpretation of a piece of rules text if it is causing an issue at your table, so being overly legalistic here feels against the spirit of the section. If a rules interpretation is leaving something non-functional, it seems well within the spirit of the Ambiguous Rules section to recommend a different interpretation.
Personally, that feels like you're holding 'problematic' up to a very high standard if it needs to impact the whole game itself. If someone wants to use an option and cannot because it doesn't function, that is a repercussion of the rule that is a problem for my table, and I'm happy to make changes to the rule on the basis of that repercussion. Either way, the whole point of the Ambiguous Rules heading is to make clear to GMs that you don't need to use a seemingly-RAW interpretation of a piece of rules text if it is causing an issue at your table, so being overly legalistic here feels against the spirit of the section. If a rules interpretation is leaving something non-functional, it seems well within the spirit of the Ambiguous Rules section to recommend a different interpretation.If something being mechanically almost unusable because it's so terribly written or designed isn't "problematic repercussions" I don't see what possibly could be.No one is forced to take it and it causes no side cases or interactions with other rules that interfere with the game... IMO, not problematic as you just don't pick bad options if you are worried about them being bad. Eschew Materials was always a bad feat, for instance, but it being bad brought no "problematic repercussions": you just didn't pick it. Bad, in and of itself isn't problematic.
I made this argument before about how a spell's heighten mechanic doesn't function properly, and basically the argument becomes "It isn't relevant to 99% of games, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't work or not." The same applies here, too.
Of course, I am of the opinion that they could have just scrapped this "useless" content entirely and either used that time and effort to address other more important issues, or instead published an actually functional spell in place of it, but some people are perfectly fine with products that have broken features.
I'm not sure it would affect unarmored AC's/saves as the unarmored 'armors' go out of their way to say they aren't armor* and the spell only affects armor. It seems to me those normally using their unarmored AC's wouldn't be affected by the spells reduction to armors.
* "Clothing isn't armor"
That seems like a stretch, even for me.
"[The target] loses any item bonus to AC..." is pretty clear cut and doesn't seem to have any other qualifiers.
That seems like a stretch, even for me.
"[The target] loses any item bonus to AC..." is pretty clear cut and doesn't seem to have any other qualifiers.
That's NOT the whole sentence. "It loses any item bonus to AC and all other effects and bonuses from armor": IE it loses any item bonus to AC from armor and all other effects and bonuses from armor. Note the "all other effects" phrase, which doesn't make sense if item bonus doesn't refer to armor.
Personally, that feels like you're holding 'problematic' up to a very high standard if it needs to impact the whole game itself. If someone wants to use an option and cannot because it doesn't function, that is a repercussion of the rule that is a problem for my table, and I'm happy to make changes to the rule on the basis of that repercussion.
But if an option is bad and/or useless, no one will want it. How many people clamored to take Eschew Materials? It seems like a DM might want to houserule it with rule 1 if they wish to make it desirable vs it being problematic issue. IMO TBTBT just doesn't fall under it and would be a simple houserule: if you remove Vapor Form from the game, the game still runs perfectly so to me it doesn't seem problematic, and neither does letting it in as is.
Either way, the whole point of the Ambiguous Rules heading is to make clear to GMs that you don't need to use a seemingly-RAW interpretation of a piece of rules text if it is causing an issue at your table, so being overly legalistic here feels against the spirit of the section. If a rules interpretation is leaving something non-functional, it seems well within the spirit of the Ambiguous Rules section to recommend a different interpretation.
IMO, it's there to let DM's know what to do about exploits and unexpected interactions that either break /bend the game. IMO, it's down to normal houseruling for anything else.
Of course, I am of the opinion that they could have just scrapped this "useless" content entirely and either used that time and effort to address other more important issues, or instead published an actually functional spell in place of it, but some people are perfectly fine with products that have broken features.
That's the way i see it. "Useless" isn't causing any problems if no one wants it and who wants it if it's useless?
That's the way i see it. "Useless" isn't causing any problems if no one wants it and who wants it if it's useless?
I don't think it's that cut and dry, nor does it excuse the fact that it's a waste of publishing space that could have been used for better content, as well as it being bad is precisely what is making it useless to begin with; feeding into itself like that probably isn't intended.
The ability to actually escape impossible bonds or slip through otherwise impassable terrain is what is intended by the spell, and it not being able to do what it's intended to do (by nature of it being unable to ignore important mechanics behind its intended function) is what is making it be labeled useless, having it then fall under the "problematic rules" clause.
It's in no way comparable to Eschew Materials, where the feat actually does what it says it does (removes Material components from spells that require Material components), and is simply bad because there is little to no value in removing Material components from spells. (I suppose there was the whole "free hand" thing, but there were other better alternatives to that stuff anyway.) Vapor Form is bad because its intended use (escape impossible bonds and slip through impassable terrain without impediments) doesn't function, not because the ability to do this activity is in and of itself bad. Niche, sure. But absolutely great when you need it.
With that in mind, I really don't think Eschew Materials and Vapor Form are on the same wave length. At no point are we pointing to Eschew Materials and go "this doesn't work the way it should." We are pointing to Eschew Materials and going "this ancillary benefit doesn't warrant the cost of a class feat," which is a completely different argument behind Vapor Form being labeled bad, which is because it's not fulfilling the effects it's meant to fulfill by nature of not having clauses which let it ignore those types of things (compared to say, Effortless Movement).
"loses any item bonus to AC and all other effects and bonuses from armor" can be read simultaneously as "lose item bonus to AC - and all other effects from armor" OR "lose item bonus to ac and all other effects effects - from armor"
both are correct grammatically since (as usual) there's no comma that would actually explain which one of the two it is.
True, but if one is really bad and one is sort of ok, I'm picking the sort of ok one. ;)
I don't think it's that cut and dry, nor does it excuse the fact that it's a waste of publishing space that could have been used for better content, as well as it being bad is precisely what is making it useless to begin with; feeding into itself like that probably isn't intended.
I'll disagree on the first but agree with the second.
The ability to actually escape impossible bonds or slip through otherwise impassable terrain is what is intended by the spell, and it not being able to do what it's intended to do (by nature of it being unable to ignore important mechanics behind its intended function) is what is making it be labeled useless, having it then fall under the "problematic rules" clause.
But it DOES allow you to "slip through otherwise impassable terrain" so it does what it's meant to do and isn't useless: it wasn't advertised as an 'escape from grapple' spell but a 'bypass porous barrier' spell and it does that. Do you really think the intent for this was a combat spell?
It's in no way comparable to Eschew Materials, where the feat actually does what it says it does (removes Material components from spells that require Material components), and is simply bad because there is little to no value in removing Material components from spells. (I suppose there was the whole "free hand" thing, but there were other better alternatives to that stuff anyway.) Vapor Form is bad because its intended use (escape impossible bonds and slip through impassable terrain without impediments) doesn't function, not because the ability to do this activity is in and of itself bad. Niche, sure. But absolutely great when you need it.
IMO, if anything it's a bad comparison because Vapor Form actually has uses while all Eschew Materials did was save you 5sp for a feat... Calling it JUST niche is a vast understatement.
With that in mind, I really don't think Eschew Materials and Vapor Form are on the same wave length.
Vapor Form has been called TBTBT and useless, apt terms for Eschew Materials IMO. Again, I think Vapor Form has MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more use than Eschew Materials ever did if we're talking about being worth the word count.
But it DOES allow you to "slip through otherwise impassable terrain" so it does what it's meant to do and isn't useless: it wasn't advertised as an 'escape from grapple' spell but a 'bypass porous barrier' spell and it does that. Do you really think the intent for this was a combat spell?
IMO, if anything it's a bad comparison because Vapor Form actually has uses while all Eschew Materials did was save you 5sp for a feat... Calling it JUST niche is a vast understatement.
Vapor Form has been called TBTBT and useless, apt terms for Eschew Materials IMO. Again, I think Vapor Form has MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more use than Eschew Materials ever did if we're talking about being worth the word count.
It does half of what is advertised, which, as you've been arguing, has been the point of contention brought up in the thread. If you turn yourself into a vapor, and not even anything that resembles a creature (such as an air elemental), then the idea that you can be grabbed is about as absurd as being able to grapple mist from the rain, because that is basically what the spell turns you into. And before the arguments of "If you want that kind of effect, cast Effortless Movement instead," firstly, those require Counteract checks (which don't always work), and secondly, you're paying for this added fidelity by lack of ability to cast spells (other than to dismiss), activate items, or otherwise attack or manipulate things. Significant limitations which essentially remove you from contributing to combat in any fashion. Plus, you can still be struck at, which makes more sense than grabbing, since you can swing at mist, but not reasonably grab it.
It's a common escape tactic of creatures like Vampires and such, transforming into a misty form and escaping to their coffin when they are out and about and are being attacked by would-be adventurers. Having a spell be designed to escape enemies when in tight situations, but actually be terrible or ineffective at escaping enemies, falls under the "probably not intended" argument of the ambiguous rules clause, because now you have a spell not doing something that it was specifically designed for. Even the argument of "it works for the other half of what it was meant for" doesn't apply because it's irrelevant to the factor that the other half is simply broken. (Let's also not forget that if said creature was Grappled already, they still have to make a Flat 5 check to Cast the Spell, and if they are Restrained, they must Break Free first to Cast the Spell; plenty restrictive enough in my opinion.)
Also, the combat spell argument is grasping at straws. If this was not meant to be a combat spell, having a casting time measured in rounds instead of minutes, hours, days, etc. already disproves it, since any spell not having a casting time in rounds is automatically disallowed in combat situations.
I was saying Vapor Form was niche, whereas Eschew Materials was so worthless that it shouldn't have warranted a feat cost, hence why I am conflating them as two different reasons for being bad. One is bad because of its effective scale and scope. The other is bad because it doesn't apply to half of the situations it's meant for. (Whereas Eschew Materials works for all of the situations it's meant to work for, as weak and limited as they are.) This is why they aren't even comparable.
It does half of what is advertised, which, as you've been arguing, has been the point of contention brought up in the thread.
How is it not as advertised? It turns you into an amorphous vaporous state. Elemental Hurricane, for instance, is a creature made of air that has an athletics skill meaning it can interact and be interacted with even though it has a similar state. What is actually granted what is advertised. The first few sentences and/or name of feats/spells/ect can often give the wrong impression of what you get; for instance flying kick in fact doesn't have to be a kick.
If you turn yourself into a vapor, and not even anything that resembles a creature (such as an air elemental), then the idea that you can be grabbed is about as absurd as being able to grapple mist from the rain, because that is basically what the spell turns you into.
I don't see where it alters your basic default shape and if you were actually like rain then you wouldn't be damaged by physical attacks: you still have a cohesive physical form even if you can pour it through cracks when you move. [you also have enough physical form that you retain your land movement: you aren't just a floating cloud] NOTHING in the spell makes me think 'this was meant to be a spell to escape grapples!' If that was the case, I'd expect it would actually mention athletics, escapes or grapples.
It's a common escape tactic of creatures like Vampires and such, transforming into a misty form and escaping to their coffin when they are out and about and are being attacked by would-be adventurers.
Nothing stops this though. It's an escape spell not a combat spell, and any SMART vampire would plan to use it in an area with small holes and such that they can escape through and most enemies wouldn't: I don't think 'break out of grapple' is an expected part of that as vampires aren't exactly bad at athletics or grapples. I think most vampires are happy to have someone hug them.
Also, the combat spell argument is grasping at straws. If this was not meant to be a combat spell, having a casting time measured in rounds instead of minutes, hours, days, etc. already disproves it, since any spell not having a casting time in rounds is automatically disallowed in combat situations.
You are the one seeming to be grabbing straws. Casting time doesn't have anything to do with a spells expected use. Prestidigitation isn't a combat spell and it's doesn't have a casting time of min, hours, days ect. Know the Way and Approximate don't take an afternoon to cast either. Ant Haul has the same casting time as Electric Arc. You aren't going to expect them to be cast in combat so I don't see that you're making a cogent point here.
PS: all this isn't to say I'd be upset if they said you'd be immune to Athletics/grapples. I just don't think it's a necessary expectation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The arguments here have some implications beyond this spell.
If a GM doesnt take the word Amorphous to mean what it means then the spell underperforms. If the GM takes the meaning of the word at face value when its used to describe the form taken when this spell is cast then there is no grabbing or restraining because theres nothing to hold onto, and if they take the ability to move your entire form through small cracks at face value then any attempt at restraint that leaves open a single tiny crack will not effectively restrain a creature in vapor form.
Its a TTRPG so description is part of taking any action. Usually we may just assume what is intended when a player says I want to use grapple that human cultist but when descriptions really matter I need them as a GM to determine if its even possible to take the action at all.
So what does the player describe when they are attempting to use grapple on vapor? I grab onto the....
See, it falls apart at describing and so its not a possible action that can be taken.
If a player says they want to bearhug the vapor and insists thats the action they want to take. The GM has the responsibility of determining if a roll is needed. In this case its not, then describe the result. You reach out with both arms to forcefully pull in the vapor and it slips through your arms gathering back up after your arms go through it.
Now if they have some means of containing the entire form such that there is no crack to move through then that is something that can work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM doesnt take the word Amorphous to mean what it means then the spell underperforms.
Putting aside the loaded language you're using, does it actually?
The spell gives you a fly speed and allows you to pass through areas you wouldn't normally be allowed to travel. That's already a significant benefit.
Adding a suite of custom immunities to the ability on top of that is creating a lot of extra power that seems somewhat out of bounds, especially when we consider other spells of a similar level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM doesnt take the word Amorphous to mean what it means then the spell underperforms.Putting aside the loaded language you're using, does it actually?
The spell gives you a fly speed and allows you to pass through areas you wouldn't normally be allowed to travel. That's already a significant benefit.
Adding a suite of custom immunities to the ability on top of that is creating a lot of extra power that seems somewhat out of bounds, especially when we consider other spells of a similar level.
True I am implying my interpretation is right.
but as for does it actually?, I think so. as to why?Many times on these forums its been said that the designers use words to generally hold the common meaning of the word. If thats the case then we shouldnt ignore the use of the word.
As to if its too good to be true?
Im not sure it is. the vapor can still be attacked. grabbing it wont work but strike will. When facing foes that easily outdamage that resistance vapor form is really not a good choice to stay in. Whereas it will be a great choice when there are foes that have a hard time getting through that resistance. So its not all good all the time but has situations that it will be good in.
And finally applying the rules this way aligns with the general sense of what vapor is and how it behaves while also observing the written limitations of the magically altered form.