Trip.H wrote: 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.
Can you give a page citation to where "states of being" conditions are defined separately from other types of conditions? It might be helpful for clarifying purposes.
Trip.H wrote: Baarogue wrote: 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. No, my argument has always been a rules one stated in agreement with SB at the beginning of the thread. I just wanted to get a little dig in at how ridiculously OP the hex is if exploited your way
Errenor wrote: Baarogue wrote: 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 Wait, what? Why 'multiple'? Yes, one target per turn with failing(!) a save.
P.S. Ah, sustaining and casting one more. Ok, maybe two targets in two turns realistically. And you are Slowed 2. I'm fine with that. If not constrained by evil eye's duration, the sickened condition does not expire on its own like frightened does. It is not even an auto-removal, and its save is subject to its penalty. A witch gets one guaranteed full round sickened target from the first casting, then if, as you say, the sickened sticks after not sustaining it, they can cast it on a different target the next turn without even sustaining the first. The first target is still sickened, and must use an action to *try* to shake it. Meanwhile the second target now can't reduce it below 1 until the witch's next turn. Turn 3, maybe target 1 has, maybe they haven't lost sickened. If they have, the witch just switches back to victim 1 and they've still got 2 sickened targets at 1 action per turn while still casting big spells. Or target 1 might *still* be sickened, in which case the witch sickens a third victim, etc.
ORRRR, they combo it with Cackle at the cost of a few focus points over multiple turns to eventually get as many targets sickened as they can, and drop it when they run out of focus points to sicken a 4th, then refresh it on a victim who shakes it each turn. I'm not partial to this strategy though
Still a rules argument though, and as I said at the start I'm with "spells with durations that don't state their effects linger, don't"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: Trip.H wrote: 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.
Can you give a page citation to where "states of being" conditions are defined separately from other types of conditions? It might be helpful for clarifying purposes. Painting the binary separation as "discretely applied independent" versus "ongoing parent dependent" may be more helpful.
All conditions by default "are persistent" and last forever, but many conditions construct themselves to not have default rules for removal; the base conditions rules then specify those types of conditions require outside effects/rules with a duration to function.
It's not technically accurate to say the latter group "require a -duration-" because there are permanent sticky effects that impose those conditions that lack duration. But those conditions do require a parent/imposing effect with a "duration or other end" in order to function; you cannot be (perhaps permanently) Enfeebled 2 without some effect "still causing" it in the present tense.
Conditions Appendix wrote: [...]Conditions change your state of being in some way, and they represent everything from the attitude other creatures have toward you and how they interact with you to what happens when a creature drains your blood or life essence.
Conditions are persistent. Whenever you're affected by a condition, its effects last until the condition's stated duration ends, the condition is removed, or terms dictated in the condition itself cause it to end.
.
Where the text chooses to group the condition types is way more soft and arbitrary
Groups of Conditions wrote: Some conditions exist relative to one another or share a similar theme. It can be useful to look at these conditions together to understand how they interact.
[...]
Attitudes: Hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful
Lowered Abilities: Clumsy, drained, enfeebled, stupefied
[...]
Note that Sickened & Frightened (even Prone) are all missing from any prescribed grouping.
.
The ability to distinguish and split the conditions into
group A: applied in single moments, independent of parent effect and
group B: always dependent upon the parent effect presently inflicting the condition
is an emergent property of how the system handles default / base case outcomes. When something already has rules for how the persistent (infinite duration) condition is ended, any spell/ability inflicting that condition is written as a single momentary event. This makes durations on Prone an erroneous / incomplete overrule where the GM either lifts them to their feet at duration's end, or blocks the standing up for the duration.
For conditions that have no defined end like Grabbed, the parent effect has to define an end somewhere, most commonly via a duration. These types define the bounds of the whole condition from start to end because of their incompleteness.
It is this temporal difference that causes the langue to change, and for these types of conditions to *not* be applied in discrete moments, but to use language for ongoing, present and temporary effects.
.
Wording examples: (this is just descriptive, not prescriptive)
Drained: "Your health & vitality have been depleted ... (discrete event has happened)
Grabbed: "You're held in place by another creature, ... (ongoing condition is ongoing)
.
The (waaay) under the hood RaW of why Sickend 1 of Evil Eye sticks around after the spell effect ends is because Sickened is considered a permanent effect (like HP damage/healing are) in the base conditions rules, and because Sickened is a complete condition with it's own rules for removal, mentions of duration do *not* apply to the condition by default. Extra rules for new ways to remove it need to be explicitly written in the text in order to happen.
Conditions without any form of removal inside their own text (like Grabbed) invoke the base Conditions rule of parent effect durations becoming the removal trigger / end for that condition. They are incomplete by themselves and need need a duration or other "end" to be provided from an outside source.
(and to say it one more time. This is the same rules "why" spells w/ duration that cause Prone do not undo the Prone upon expiry, nor force targets to stay Prone the whole duration. Prone's already got all that in it's default condition text + base condition rules.)
Squiggit wrote: Trip.H wrote: 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. Can you give a page citation to where "states of being" conditions are defined separately from other types of conditions? It might be helpful for clarifying purposes. I'm just going to go out on a limb and state that while I think Trip is right here, The choice of words however can be a bit misleading depending on reading. The rules for Conditions and Spell Durations both agree however on the behavior.
Paizo also acknowledges that conditions aren't created equal.
This has been seen in the clarification regarding afflictions in the CRB 4th print, which was seen earlier, But also in discussions regarding some of the monsters in Bestiary 2 and some AP specific ones like the Cockatrice and Sand wolf but also the Crystal Dragon.
Essentially they lump conditions into two categories by their own words;
Conditions that have a way to end them by default;
Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them.
Its not to hard to see why this distinction is made either, Specifically because of the wonky behavior that comes when a condition from the latter category is imposed without the required defined behavior. Like if paralyze would not have a duration or recovery.
Thats not to say that all instances of Enfeebled have to be tied to a spell effect either as seen in Dehydrate which can impose the Enfeebled condition on the same turn the spell expires. Because it explicitly assigns Enfeebled a duration separate from the spell itself. Which according to the rules for Spell Durations means the effect causing the Enfeebled condition is a non-magical effect separate from the Spell.
This is the default behavior to so spells don't have to state if something linger or not, if it is tied to the spells duration, then it ends. If not, it lingers which typically means all conditions of the former category unless otherwise stated.
PC1 Spell Durations wrote: The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts. Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration entry. A spell might last until the start or end of a turn, for some number of rounds, for minutes, or even longer. If a spell's duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the spellcaster's turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.
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).
You can be of the mind that all conditions and effects end when the spell does. But in order to prove that one would need to actually come with a specific piece of rule that would have priority to the second paragraph above.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Baarogue wrote: A witch gets one guaranteed full round sickened target from the first casting Are you serious here? No reason to discuss further.
And yes, I'm okay with witch having one chance per turn applying meaninful but not severe debuff on one target. And maybe keeping one or two in place at the cost of not doing much else. Let them have fun. If that's what this is.
Also, I know that sickened needs to be removed by something.
Baarogue wrote: Still a rules argument though, and as I said at the start I'm with "spells with durations that don't state their effects linger, don't" Well, and I and the rules say "conditions that remove themselves stay after a spell ends unless the spell says otherwise". Nothing to be done.
Like really, the only(?) three relevant places (and 4th repeating one of them) in the rules say that or things not contradicting that, and still...
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
