| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This cantrip inflicts the sickened condition, so I would not need to sustain this would I? It stays on indefinitely until they spend an action attempting to remove it correct?
When a spell expires, all its effects are removed unless they are ongoing non-magical effects (which are only the case for instantaneous spells which Evil Eye is not). So if you stop Sustaining it, the target is no more Sickened.
But a lot of players consider that Sickened and Frightened Conditions somehow ignore this rule, based on nothing in the rules. So you can expect both ruling to be used depending on the GM. As such I encourage you to check with your GM first. And in a PFS setting I'd not consider that it lasts beyond the spell duration.
Do you perhaps have the relevant rules on hand?
Spell duration rules that you yourself linked.
And the interpretation is rather clear: When a spell ends all its effects are removed. The only effects that last are ongoing effects, which are determined because they have a duration longer than the spell's duration.
I agree that this last sentence is weirdly written. But I think the concept is clear. And in the case of Evil Eye, there's no duration associated to the Sickened Condition so it stops when the spell ends.
This feels wrong
Why? Why don't you have any issue removing Conditions inflicted by a spell the second its duration expires but when it comes to Sickened it becomes a problem?
Your interpretation is actually the weird one. Having a spell with a Sustained duration which effects continue even if you don't Sustain it... It seems really wrong actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell needs to state "Sickened for X rounds" or "Sickened while the effect lasts" in order for the condition to be tied to the effect itself.
And if it doesn't state it then... it's tied to the duration of the spell.
If an effect has a duration and if this duration is not in line with the spell duration then it's an ongoing effect. In the other case, it's limited to the spell duration.
You should read Phantom Pain, it's telling. It has a duration and only gives the Sickened Condition (and persistent damage linked to the duration of the Sickened Condition). So it's rather clear that when its duration ends the Sickened Condition is removed (if it was still there).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with NorrKnekten unless explicitly stated by the spell I consider that most conditions similar to damage they are consequences not the currently magical effect sustained by de spell duration so they follow the normal condition rules.
Evil Eye for example leave it implicit this when states "This condition value can't be reduced below 1 while the spell is active and you can see the target". What means that the spell duration keeps and the target was unable to reduce it even if tries to use the sickness action to retching.
When the witch stops to Sustain or looses the line of sight it duration continues but now the char can use retching to try to remove it.
If we consider that conditions are magical parts of the effects if the spell prone a target it would automatically stand up when the spell ends or persistent damage will only be persistent while the spell duration is active and if the spell is instante all conditions automatically ends immediately after the spell was used. It's no sense.
Persistent is the literal definition of ongoing and certain spells will have a duration lower than any inflicted conditions.
According to this reading, Haste will give permanent Quickened Condition.
If we consider that conditions are magical parts of the effects if the spell prone a target it would automatically stand up when the spell ends
With ifs you can do a lot of things. Now, you need to find a spell with a duration that inflicts the Prone Condition otherwise your if will just stay an if.
Err, SB has a point so I will change my mind.
So lets consider it as Conflicting Rules and apply the Specific Overrides General so...:
A core principle of Pathfinder is that specific rules override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use. For example, the rules state that when attacking a concealed creature, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check to determine if you hit. Flat checks don't benefit from modifiers, bonuses, or penalties, but an ability that's specifically designed to overcome concealment might override and alter this. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the general rules presented in this chapter, even if effects don't specifically say to.
IMO spells are more specific than conditions general rules and if we consider that conditions are part of the magical effect and not its consequence so the most specific applies that's the spell so applies the spell duraction.
This is very bad to debuffing spells once that sustained spells will be way less efficient.
This is very bad to debuffing spells once that sustained spells will be way less efficient.
There are extremely few spells with a duration that conflicts with the Condition "habitual" duration. Mostly, it's just Evil Eye and Dirge of Doom. Besides these spells, either the duration is big enough that the case won't happen (like Phantom Pain, I hope you'll get out of the Sickened Condition in 10 rounds) or directly use ongoing effects (Vision of Death for example).
So, Frightened from Dirge of Doom doesn't end at a bard's start of turn. Well, only unless you read "Enemies within the area are frightened 1" as "Enemies within the area are frightened 1 [for the duration of the spell]". But you definitely don't have to. Even though they could've meant that, but that's not what they've written.
The PF1 version of Dirge of Doom is exactly that: When you are in the area you are Shaken (the equivalent of Frightened in PF1) and when you're out, you're no more.
But I must admit I have no idea how this spell is supposed to work, as written it's just super weird. It doesn't have the Aura trait. Which means that the area doesn't follow the Bard: It's just a static area that Frightens enemies. Similarly, it's unclear if it's just at time of casting or if it affects enemies that come inside afterwards (in general when an area effect affects enemies that get inside it it's specifically indicated when and how it works). Overall, I can't tell you precisely what Paizo meant with Dirge of Doom, I think we can find half a dozen ways of playing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm taking the "Sickened persists after spell" side of this one.
If you swap out the condition of Sickened for Frightened, the same rules apply. The spell makes an instantaneous application of the condition, and a second effect prevents the normal removal of the condition. But if there was another "cannot reduce Frightened..." fear aura or some such, then I think we would all agree that the Frightened would continue to linger after Evil Eye was long gone. The weird auras that instantly remove Frightened only do so because their text says it removes the condition, which is why Evil Eye would need to do the same.
.
There are plenty of effects that prevent the normal decay/removal of Frightened. But when these effects end, we do not expect the Frightened to vanish, that is a condition of the creatures, and those creatures are the ones that by default remove/decay it at the end of their turns.
Sickened is the same. Evil Eye preventing Sickened removal is a second, independent effect of the part that sickens.
"The target becomes sickened 1..."
is very clear that you are not imposing a unique magical penalty that mimics sickened, which would poof as soon as the spell ends. This text unambiguously states that the target gains the sickened condition. Unless the spell says that it removes that sickened condition, the spell expiring has no effect on any conditions the target may have.
.
Again, if you swap that for frightened 1, you could have the exact same text with the exact same consistent ruling.
.
Spells often have multiple effects, doing both instantaneous and duration effects. Ever damage spell with some lingering effect are examples.
Evil Eye is a spell that both does an instantaneous effect, inflicting a condition, and carries a duration effect, the prevention of the condition removal.
The wording of Evil Eye is very precise to work this way. If SBidi's interpretation were desired by the writer, it would have been incredibly easy to use common wording like:
"If the target fails a Will save, it sufferers the effects of sickened 1 while the spell is active." or any other wording that does *not* discretely apply the condition to the target.
.
In short: SuperBidi is not considering spells that can both apply discrete instant things, and also have other duration effects. Evil Eye is one of those.
If you swap out the condition of Sickened for Frightened, the same rules apply.
And then replace it by Slowed or Confused and the same rule applies?
As a side note, the Frightened Condition has a duration ingrained in the Condition, unlike the Sickened Condition. So you actually changed the problem a lot.
If you swap out the condition of Sickened for Frightened, the same rules apply.And then replace it by Slowed or Confused and the same rule applies?
As a side note, the Frightened Condition has a duration ingrained in the Condition, unlike the Sickened Condition. So you actually changed the problem a lot.
No, I did that on purpose to sus out where the disagreement was, as a lot of people forget/get that wrong about Frightened.
Frightened does not have a duration. It specifically does not, and is not compatible with a duration. Unique effects with their own duration may impose the condition for a time, but Frightened fundamentally does not have one. It's not even like Stunned where it can be both; frightened never has a duration.
Which is why you get some aura like abilities that manually cleanse their own frightened debuff, and others that let the condition linger by omitting such a cleanse.
.
Sickened and Frightened are both "always includes a value" conditions that also self-govern their removal by default.
Many conditions intentionally lack self-removal so that the table *needs* to find and keep track of the imposing effect. Slowed is both "always a value" and lacks self-removal. To be Slowed, the condition must be imposed by an ongoing effect.
Slowed is only ever something imposed upon them, and removing the clinging imposer always removes the Slow.
That is fundamentally different from Sick&Fright.
.
Sick&Fright are of the same categorical type as Drained, Fatigued, and even Prone.
These conditions are states of being for the suffering creature. Frightened is something all creatures normally recover from quickly, while Sickened is written to be the condition that requires a fail-able action spend to cleanse.
Frightened is often forgotten/mischaracterized because of how quickly it's self-cleansed, and that misconception can make it harder to grok the condition rules as a whole.
.
For the sake of adjudicating Evil Eye, it might be more helpful to swap the Sickened 1 for Drained 1, which is well known for being "sticky" well after the imposing effect ends.
The alternatives that would result in the Sickened *not* staying after the spell:
* the wording of the imposing effect never actually applies the condition ("suffers the effects of ____ while ___")
* or the spell/effect explicitly removes the condition ("when the effect ends, the ___ of this effect is removed from the target")
.
Without those two possibilities, that condition uses its normal rules for removal, and for Sickened, that means retching.
It is important to know that these "states of being" conditions are genuinely a bit tricky because of their core difference from "imposed conditions" like Restrained, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Frightened] is not compatible with a duration.
What? Show me a line stating that.
On paper, you can be Frightened 2 for 1 round the same way you can be Sickened 1 for 1 round.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Frightened] is not compatible with a duration.What? Show me a line stating that.
On paper, you can be Frightened 2 for 1 round the same way you can be Sickened 1 for 1 round.
Source Player Core pg. 444 2.0
You're gripped by fear and struggle to control your nerves. The frightened condition always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to this value to all your checks and DCs. Unless specified otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of your frightened condition decreases by 1
This has no duration. If you see something that imposes the condition with a duration, that duration is NOT frightened, but a unique effect that includes the frightened condition within it.
.
The effect with a duration would be the spell itself, not the frightened contained within.
This is why spells like this one say "cannot be reduced below 1 while..."
If frightened was a normal "imposed condition" then that text would not be needed.
Instead, the reality is that Frightened is a "state of being" condition that is only applied once in a discrete moment, then a spell effects blocks the normal self-removal of the condition to artificially construct something more similar to an "imposed" type condition.
Note that even when the Witch ends their turn without sustaining the spell, the target is still Frightened 1. The target must then use the normal rules of the self-removal to get rid of their Frightened. This can then be messed with via effects like the Fearsome armor rune, etc.
.
Destrachan's
[...]
Success The creature is sickened 1 for 1 round.
This is like saying Drained 1 for 1 round. It's an invalid bit of text that requires GM interpretation. Saying "sickend 1 for 1 round" is like saying "inflict Prone for 1 round."
Or even "inflict 5d6 fire damage for 1 round."The effect mentioned is an instantaneous, discrete event. Adding a duration is nonsense.
Many GMs would read that "for 1 round" text to imply or be RaI enough to interpret that duration as a self-removal clause of the effect when that duration expires. But, as per matter of rules, that wording just doesn't function with discrete events, which inflicting those conditions are.
IDK how I would adjudicate "5d6 fire damage for 1 round." as removal would mean healing.
.
Again, this is why the new Witch cantrips use that "cannot reduce the condition" text, as it is the "rules valid" way to extend an instant, discrete event like becoming fright&sick.
.
This is a rare case where I can say that the example legacy creature's text is invalid / incompatible with the rules and is an error that requires GM interpretation to resolve the RaI behind it.
Some GMs will rule that duration as being a "cannot reduce below" type effect, and will have the Sicken linger (I've been at a table that did this) and other GMs will conclude that the RaI was for the effect to also remove the condition it caused when the imposing effect expired.
This has no duration. If you see something that imposes the condition with a duration, that is NOT frightened, but a unique effect that includes the frightened condition.
I just linked you the Sickened Condition with a duration (as this is the core of the discussion, I remind you).
This has no duration. If you see something that imposes the condition with a duration, that is NOT frightened, but a unique effect that includes the frightened condition.I just linked you the Sickened Condition with a duration (as this is the core of the discussion, I remind you).
Sorry, decided to respond to that specifically in an edit to reduce post count, was too slow.
But does that Convention also not state that you should default to the rules written in that chapter, which also happens to be the same chapter as the rules for conditions?Err, SB has a point so I will change my mind.
So lets consider it as Conflicting Rules and apply the Specific Overrides General so...:
No it's the opposite. The specific rules are those who are out of the main rules chapter is the rule more closer to what "called it". For example Vicious Swing calls Strike so it can overwrites any rules that Strike states, Strike also is more specific and calls general attack rules so it can override the general attack rules, general attack runes is more specific than general roll rules so it can override general roll rules...
In this case the player used a Spell this spell is more specific than any subordinated action/rules that it call an can overwrite it. This spell calls the general spell rules, this rule overwrite any general rule that is called by it, in this case the conditions rules.
Even the rules for spell duration state that.
Some spells have effects that remain even after the spell's magic is gone. Any ongoing effect that isn't part of the spell's duration entry isn't magical. For instance, a spell that creates a brief, loud sound might deafen someone for a time, even permanently. This deafness couldn't be counteracted because it is not itself magical (though it might be cured by other magic, such as sound body).
The only dubious question here to me is if the conditions are "ongoing effect that isn't part of the spell's duration entry isn't magical". If they are considered magical effect that depends from the spell duration so its duration is the same of the spell. But if they are a consequence of the spell like damage are so they continues even if the spell ends. The problem is, when a condition is an spell effect or a consequence? We knows that damage are always a consequence because there are rules stating this but this is unclear for conditions.
SB pointed well when it says that Haste spell has a duration and that its Quickened condition ends with the spell because otherwise a creature would end eternally quickened or slowed and this isn't what the spell intention.
But when a creature is Sickened by Evil Eye, this sicken is an entire effect caused and keept by the spell and ends with the spell or it is a result of the spell curse and the sickened continues until the char uses an action to do a fortitude check and have success canceling it?
Currently the interpretation that this sickened is part of the spell magical effect makes more sense to me.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about we look at the official clarification statements.
Page 458 (Clarification): If an affliction makes me enfeebled 1 without listing a duration and the affliction ends, am I enfeebled forever?
The rules on Conditions from Afflictions note that a condition can last for a longer duration that the affliction that caused it, using drained as an example. There are three categories of effects from afflictions here.
1) Immediate effects like damage happen as soon as you reach the stage.
2) Conditions that have a way to end them by default last for their normal duration. This includes conditions like drained, frightened, persistent damage, and sickened.
3) Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them—such as clumsy or paralyzed—last as long as the stage of the affliction on which they appear. This also applies to effects that are ongoing but specific to the affliction rather than being defined conditions, such as a penalty to certain rolls.
Yes, this is for afflictions instead of spells. It still seems to be relevant, and helpful in deciding which of the spell's effects fall into the category of 'spell effects that remain after the spell is gone' since the spell duration rules don't specify anything one way or the other.
In the case of Evil Eye, Sickened is a condition that has a way to end it by default (retching). It is even one of the examples listed for category #2. So the Sickened condition caused by Evil Eye should be a non-magical effect that persists beyond the spell's duration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main complication that helps understand these issues is that some conditions are things that only exist while they are imposed by outside forces; other conditions are "states of being" that can only be applied to a creature in discrete / instant moments.
It makes no sense for "states of being" conditions to have duration;
an affect may "send the target Prone," but an effect that imposes "Prone for 2 rounds," is nonsensical because becoming Prone is a discrete/singular event. (this is why the new Witch spells use "cannot reduce their condition" text for those "state of being" conditions, as that is rules-compatible)
But it *does* make perfect sense for "imposed" conditions to have durations, because they *require* a duration to exist. If you are Restrained, that can only happen while -something- is doing the restraining.
.
This is the difference between things like Quickened and Slowed versus Prone, Drained, Sickened, etc.
Anything that applies those "imposed" effects always has a duration, and the moment that effect is gone, the imposed condition is gone.
States of being conditions cannot (directly) have a duration, because they are applied to their targets in singular moments, then have their own rules for removal. You need to stand up to end prone, retch to cleanse sickened, etc.
Because Frightened is automatically self-cleansed, it's the most often forgotten / dev error condition that is mistakenly though of as an "imposed" type that can get applied w/ a duration.
Sickened is also sometimes erroneously given a duration, as per that example SBdidi found.
Sorry, decided to respond to that specifically in an edit to reduce post count, was too slow.
Heated conversations generate quick responses ;)
This is a rare case where I can say that the example legacy creature's text is invalid / incompatible with the rules and is an error that requires GM interpretation to resolve the RaI behind it.
And in the case of Evil Eye, YuriP answer sums it all well:
Currently the interpretation that this sickened is part of the spell magical effect makes more sense to me.
I'm still waiting for a situation where your (Trip/Finoan/NorrKnekten) interpretation leads to a clearly better interpretation than ours. Because we provided you with many spells and effects that contradict your vision and you failed to provide a single one (Gust of Wind doesn't work as it's the AoE that lasts one minute, the Prone Condition is not a direct consequence of the spell).
Sorry, decided to respond to that specifically in an edit to reduce post count, was too slow.Heated conversations generate quick responses ;)
This is a rare case where I can say that the example legacy creature's text is invalid / incompatible with the rules and is an error that requires GM interpretation to resolve the RaI behind it.And in the case of Evil Eye, YuriP answer sums it all well:
Currently the interpretation that this sickened is part of the spell magical effect makes more sense to me.I'm still waiting for a situation where your (Trip/Finoan/NorrKnekten) interpretation leads to a clearly better interpretation than ours. Because we provided you with many spells and effects that contradict your vision and you failed to provide a single one (Gust of Wind doesn't work as it's the AoE that lasts one minute, the Prone Condition is not a direct consequence of the spell).
The "cannot reduce condition while" text removes all ambiguity and need for GM interpretation.
Those Witch cantrips apply the conditions in singular moments. Those cantrips also can block the normal recovery methods inherent to their conditions.
This is done explicitly so that you have to use and reference the condition's specific rules for self-removal and then modify them w/ the spell effect.
This means that there is no longer any potential ambiguity that the spell is sustaining the condition itself, we can say 100% the the duration spell effect is only modifying the recovery rules of the condition.
When the spell effect expires, you only end the modification that blocks the self-recovery rules. The duration effect of the spell was never part of applying / maintaining the effect in the first place, so there is no reason for the end of that magic to cleanse the condition.
.
Again, applying Sickened/Frightened 1 is a singular instant event that is equivalent to a Trip, or dealing damage.
Some effects will include "... when this ends, the target is no longer frightened..." text. That is required for such condition removal to happen.
Therefore, the Sickened & Frightened caused by those Witch cantrips persist after the spell's magic ends.
How about we look at the official clarification statements.
Page 458 (Clarification): If an affliction makes me enfeebled 1 without listing a duration and the affliction ends, am I enfeebled forever?
The rules on Conditions from Afflictions note that a condition can last for a longer duration that the affliction that caused it, using drained as an example. There are three categories of effects from afflictions here.
1) Immediate effects like damage happen as soon as you reach the stage.
2) Conditions that have a way to end them by default last for their normal duration. This includes conditions like drained, frightened, persistent damage, and sickened.
3) Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them—such as clumsy or paralyzed—last as long as the stage of the affliction on which they appear. This also applies to effects that are ongoing but specific to the affliction rather than being defined conditions, such as a penalty to certain rolls.Yes, this is for afflictions instead of spells. It still seems to be relevant, and helpful in deciding which of the spell's effects fall into the category of 'spell effects that remain after the spell is gone' since the spell duration rules don't specify anything one way or the other.
In the case of Evil Eye, Sickened is a condition that has a way to end it by default (retching). It is even one of the examples listed for category #2. So the Sickened condition caused by Evil Eye should be a non-magical effect that persists beyond the spell's duration.
Good take. It's a pretty way to deal with it. It's not for spells in general but make sense to use it in all spells not only for afflictions.
How about we look at the official clarification statements.
Page 458 (Clarification): If an affliction makes me enfeebled 1 without listing a duration and the affliction ends, am I enfeebled forever?
The rules on Conditions from Afflictions note that a condition can last for a longer duration that the affliction that caused it, using drained as an example. There are three categories of effects from afflictions here.
1) Immediate effects like damage happen as soon as you reach the stage.
2) Conditions that have a way to end them by default last for their normal duration. This includes conditions like drained, frightened, persistent damage, and sickened.
3) Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them—such as clumsy or paralyzed—last as long as the stage of the affliction on which they appear. This also applies to effects that are ongoing but specific to the affliction rather than being defined conditions, such as a penalty to certain rolls.Yes, this is for afflictions instead of spells. It still seems to be relevant, and helpful in deciding which of the spell's effects fall into the category of 'spell effects that remain after the spell is gone' since the spell duration rules don't specify anything one way or the other.
In the case of Evil Eye, Sickened is a condition that has a way to end it by default (retching). It is even one of the examples listed for category #2. So the Sickened condition caused by Evil Eye should be a non-magical effect that persists beyond the spell's duration.
These are the rules for afflictions, not the rules for spells.
And Phantom Pain is not at all in line with that. And Invisibility. And Confusion. And so many more. This doesn't apply to spells at all and will generate crazy things if you do.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Phantom pain sickened last until you manage to retch and stays even if you manage to remove the persistent damage or the spell ends before retching.
Phantom Pain has a duration and goes a long way to link the duration to the Sickened Condition. Still, according to your interpretation, it has no magical effect and as such the duration is pointless... Weird. In my interpretation, Sickened is a magical effect and as such the link between the spell duration and the Sickened Condition is important as otherwise you'd have a spell with a duration and no effect.
Invisibility lasts until you make a hostile action, so according to your interpretation it's permanent.
Confusion has a mean of removal and still always has a duration. It makes a lot of mistakes...
And I can continue:
Fear has a duration despite only inflicting the Frightened Condition.
The Destrachan inflicts the Sickened Condition for 1 round.
Ghost's Draining Touch gives you the Drained 1 condition for 1 day.
Your rule doesn't hold any water. That's not how the game works, guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you are treating Sickened like a "presently imposed" condition like Grabbed, Fleeing, etc. These conditions only exist as ongoing effects with a duration. It is not possible to have one of these without a "parent" effect imposing the condition, such as a spell name, creature ability name, etc. Fleeing is not an independent thing that a creature can "be," it only exists as a sub-component of another effect that is forcing it.
.
It it not rule-valid to use that assumption for Sickened. Sickened is one of the many "states of being" type conditions that are inflicted during single instant moments, like Prone, Drained, Fatigued, etc. The recovery of these conditions are separate discrete/instant effects, and are not tied to a duration.
These types of conditions are genuinely "independent" of whatever effect caused them by default. Unless specifically overwritten, all of these are separate from and persist well after the spell/ability/etc that imposed them.
.
You did find a real error with the Destrachan, but afaik, there is no other rules problem presented in this thread if you properly treat the application of Sickened like any other instantaneous effect, including dealing damage.
In your Phantom Pain example, the spell inflicts the condition in a single moment, and has no extra removal clause to purge the sickened condition.
If the target failed or worse, and the 1 min duration expired, that creature would still suffer from Sickend 1 after the magic is gone, the same as if the magic had induced any other "state of being" type condition.
.
For the sake of clarity, swap Sickened for Prone in that Phantom Pain example. Standing up would end the spell early, but there is no reason for the magic duration timing out to lift up the creature and put them back onto their feet. This is the same for all of those types, removing those conditions only happens under specific rules/actions, and it makes no sense to add extra cleansing effects to spells that lack rules text explicitly cleansing those conditions.
This is fundamentally the difference between these "states of being" types versus the "presently imposed" conditions. This is a real binary "group A or group B" type difference.
You are refusing to engage with this distinction, and it causes no rule problems when understood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are refusing to engage with this distinction, and it causes no rule problems when understood.
Nope. I refuse to engage with made up rules.
Anyway, I'll repeat what I said earlier:
When a spell expires, all its effects are removed unless they are ongoing non-magical effects (which are only the case for instantaneous spells which Evil Eye is not). So if you stop Sustaining it, the target is no more Sickened.
But a lot of players consider that Sickened and Frightened Conditions somehow ignore this rule, based on nothing in the rules. So you can expect both ruling to be used depending on the GM. As such I encourage you to check with your GM first. And in a PFS setting I'd not consider that it lasts beyond the spell duration.
There was no need for such a long conversation ;)
I'm still waiting for a situation where your (Trip/Finoan/NorrKnekten) interpretation leads to a clearly better interpretation than ours.
It is a difference in approach here.
Since the spell duration rules don't give a good way of determining which effects of a spell are part of its duration and which are non-magical effects that persist after the spell ends, then any decision is an interpretation.
I can give my interpretation.
You can give your interpretation.
Neither of us can invalidate the other person's interpretation. Much as you and several others seem to be insisting on attempting to do so.
There is no 'one right interpretation' in the face of unspecified rules. So stop trying to 'prove' that your interpretation is better than someone else's.
Gust of Wind doesn't work as it's the AoE that lasts one minute, the Prone Condition is not a direct consequence of the spell.
Why wouldn't that work?
The AoE lasts one minute until the start of your next turn. And it attempts to knock prone anyone who is in the AoE when it is cast or who moves into the affected area while the spell is active.
Prone is a condition that has a natural way of removing it (standing up). So I would classify it as a non-magical effect of the spell that persists after the spell ends.
Gust of Wind does not prevent an affected target from removing the condition. They can spend an action to stand up after being knocked prone even while the spell is still active.
And if someone is knocked prone, are you really going to try and argue that ending the spell will cause the prone condition to be removed? I would hope not. That is a non-magical effect that persists after the spell ends. The affected target will still have to spend an action standing up if they get knocked prone whether the spell is still active or not.
When a spell expires, all its effects are removed unless they are ongoing non-magical effects (which are only the case for instantaneous spells which Evil Eye is not). So if you stop Sustaining it, the target is no more Sickened.
But a lot of players consider that Sickened and Frightened Conditions somehow ignore this rule, based on nothing in the rules. So you can expect both ruling to be used depending on the GM. As such I encourage you to check with your GM first. And in a PFS setting I'd not consider that it lasts beyond the spell duration.
No, that's not correct. Again, you are refusing to acknowledge that Sickened is in the same group of independent, "state of being" conditions as Prone, Drained, etc. And that it is *not* in the group of "parent effect dependent" conditions that contain Grabbed, Fleeing, etc.
You are incorrectly using the rules of the latter group and misapplying them to the first.
The group of "independent" / "state of being" conditions like Prone are all duration 0 conditions caused in instantaneous moments.
None of these are duration effects dependent upon their source spell/ability/etc. By default, causing one of these conditions is always a single moment instant, and are therefore not reversed by duration expiry any more than damage would be reversed.
.
.
SuperBidi, if you swap the spell's Sickened for Prone, on fail, the target is knocked prone (a single moment event). While the spell is in effect, the target cannot recover from Prone (an ongoing duration effect).
Once the duration ends, SuperBidi, what happens?
Does the target get lifted to their feet to reverse the Prone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're all going in circles now. There's a side that feels it's okay for a witch to be able to keep multiple targets sickened at little-to-no cost and a side that thinks that's a bit too much. There can't be any "winner" now. Everyone is too entrenched
FFS, this is why we can't have nice things.
If one's argument is the spell is too good to be true, they need to say that.
Attempting to twist the RaW to fit one's preconceived balance ruling is the definition of disingenuous bullsh.t that directly causes arbitrary & inconsistent rulings while leaving an incorrect and problematic record on the public internet.
Having a pre-chosen outcome is completely incompatible with attempting to figure out what the actual RaW is.
Instead of that BS, people need to be confident enough to houserule things they find non-viable RaW.
We all know the game's not perfect. That means both textual errors and balance errors. Get over it and have the balls to disagree with the text, or honestly engage with trying to figure out what the text really is.
In an earlier post, I edited out an accusation of SBdidi's argument coming from balance worries, because any concern about balance is completely separate from trying to explain/discover the RaW.
If he's being intentionally disingenuous and hiding his real argument, that's not something I'm going to be able to know for certain, and making the accusation provokes a whole lot of irrelevant clouding of the waters.