Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
PFS FAQ states: "Pathfinder Society uses the optional rules published with the liminal on page 143 of Bestiary 3 for this situation, which are reproduced here:
There aren’t default rules for a creature choosing to be hit[...], but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step."
In the case of the feat Healing Bomb it's a massive improvement. Are both rules meant to interact or is it a case where there's no need for the Bestiary 3 rules as Healing Bombs already consider your ally is trying to get hit?
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
It's up to the GM - "you CAN allow". Some GMs may allow you to improve the degree, some might not. This is also relevant for Life Shot, which says that willing targets are flat footed - in some tables, you might be flat footed AND improve the degree by one step. The FAQ merely states that the optional rule is in use - and the optional rule is that a GM can allow, if they wish and if the situation warrants it. Without the FAQ, the optional rule would not be allowed, which would be a blanket ban for GMs to allow it.
It's important to understand the context here. That rule is there because of a creature which 'overheals you' and attempts to kill you by giving you too much health, and when fighting it, it makes sense to sometimes hit your allies, and sometimes your allies may even want to help you to hit them. It's not intentend as a blanket "All abilities that target allies are always one degree of success better", it's intended to make creative solutions/using hostile abilities against allies easier (like shoving an ally out of harms way, or picking them up in an aqueous orb) - it's not meant to improve random abilities which were meant to be used on allies from the beginning.
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
I see what you mean. The rule is doubly optional and the FAQ removes the first optional but not the "can allow".
I think the FAQ would have been clearer by stating that the "Pathfinder Society allows the use of the optional rules" instead of stating that it "uses the optional rules". Because, as written, some of my players (and myself at first) understood that it was enforced in PFS and that the GM had no say in allowing it anymore.
|
I agree with the conclusion: this is for a willing ally to accept damage/negative effect and not a loophole to make beneficial effects better.
I disagree with the assessment that use of the rule is up to the GM now that OP has stated PFS uses that rule, else a GM could arbitrarily decide to not use it in the context for which it was intended.
|
I understand, but i think that you are overseeing the initial question asked in the FAQ:
Can I willingly fail a save if my ally is attempting to use an item or ability to benefit me ?"
and then the answer is
PFS FAQ states: "Pathfinder Society uses the optional rules published with the liminal on page 143 of Bestiary 3 for this situation, which are reproduced here:
There aren’t default rules for a creature choosing to be hit[...], but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step."