Am I reading Red-Gold Mortality correctly?
Once it blocks or diminishes a single instance of healing, it simply stops working.
For example if an enemy cleric healed a wounded ally, and saw it blocked by obvious magic, then clearly saw said magic go away, all they'd have to do is try again? If it were me, I'd start using a 1-action loww-level heal to remove the effect followed by a 2-action high level heal to get the target to full health.
Or a troll may not gain Hit Points from regeneration in one round, but still would in the next round? (It also only blocks healing, this feat doesn't actually seem like it would allow you to kill the troll.)
Seems kinda weak and circumstantial. Do we really need additional restrictions and limitations over the 1 minute duration?
Exactly. The idea is not to work like a "I hit you and now you need to make a will check vs my class DC and if you fail you will never will be able to be healed anymore" instead is just to limit the healing effects of the target.
So the target could use minor healing to recover but once that each Strike that the exemplar hit it could enable the Red-Gold Mortality again depending from enemy will save.
For enemies with many healing spells this means that this enemy will waste some minor spells and actions to be able to get a stronger heal and for enemies with regeneration/fast healing this means that they will heal slowly in general.
It's a circunstancial Ikon (once that most of encounters the enemies usually doesn't have any healing effect) but that doesn't cost actions to you and it will be pretty problematic for enemies with healing effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit confused by the complaint.
Once it blocks or diminishes a single instance of healing, it simply stops working.
Yes. That is what it says. For one healing attempt within the next minute.
And as also noted, it is able to be reapplied as a natural consequence of combat and has no temporary immunity.
For example if an enemy cleric healed a wounded ally, and saw it blocked by obvious magic, then clearly saw said magic go away, all they'd have to do is try again? If it were me, I'd start using a 1-action loww-level heal to remove the effect followed by a 2-action high level heal to get the target to full health.
That is a valid workaround. Note that this tactic only works at touch range and it costs two spell slots and all three actions for the turn. The enemy cleric won't have the actions available for Reach Spell or Stride to get to an injured ally that they don't start their turn adjacent to.
The existence of expensive workarounds for an opponent's ability doesn't mean that the ability is bad. It means that the ability is balanced.
|
Am I reading Red-Gold Mortality correctly
Or a troll may not gain Hit Points from regeneration in one round, but still would in the next round? (It also only blocks healing, this feat doesn't actually seem like it would allow you to kill the troll.)
That's precisely how I read it. That's what it says.
HOWEVER, I would almost certainly run it as deactivating regeneration for the duration because:1.) Stopping the healing from fast healing or regeneration is usually a pretty small number.
2.) It'd be a real feelsbadman for the player who opted in to an otherwise pretty weak and niche ability.
If I ruled it as written with regards to regen, my players would almost certainly ask to retrain the feat as soon as the interaction came up. And I'd let them 'cause it sucks.
Alright, so if I bop the enemy cleric twice in one turn, does it interfere with his next two attempts to heal himself (if both attempts are made on his turn)? Why or why not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, so if I bop the enemy cleric twice in one turn, does it interfere with his next two attempts to heal himself (if both attempts are made on his turn)? Why or why not?
No. Duplicate Effects.