In the impossible Playtest, the Necromancer have this feature:
"Mastery of Life and Death
You have studied the delicate balance of life and death to such a point that you can dance between them with ease. Whenever you cast a spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality. For instance, if the creature were immune to void and had no resistance or immunity to vitality damage, it would take vitality damage from the spell or ability. Resistance or immunity to both (or to all damage) applies as normal."
In the Player Core 1, p.452, it states:
""ability: This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on."
So, I was wondering: what exactly qualifies as an "ability" to trigger Mastery of Life and Death?
For example, would a weapon rune that adds void or vitality damage to my strikes work?
It's unclear to me what counts as an ability in this context, and I'd like to have an answer for my players if they want to playtest the Necromancer and use this feature.
Like it says, an ability is something that a character is able to accomplish that is not standard for all characters.
Casting a spell is an ability, though it is also called out as a separate thing in the Mastery of Life and Death rule.
Some abilities are activated directly and have an action cost, such as the Spirit's Absolution ability.
Others are more like passive buffs, such as the Legacy Spirit Barbarian Instinct ability.
Any of those would qualify. It doesn't matter to me if they come from a class feat, and ancestry feat, a class ability, or even a general or skill feat.
Because of the way that Mastery of Life and Death is themed and worded, I would generally not allow effects that come from items to work (unless they are items that allow you to cast spells since spells are called out separately) - because they are not the character's abilities, they are the item's abilities and the item does not inherently have the Master of Life and Death feature.
So Bottled Sunlight wouldn't have the effect applied.
That is more up for debate. I could be convinced to allow Strike with a weapon with a rune that deals Vitality damage to work.
There was a full thread about this section in the playtest forum. I can't seem to find it today.
I suggested that the language needs significant rewrite for more clarity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I was wondering: what exactly qualifies as an "ability" to trigger Mastery of Life and Death?
For example, would a weapon rune that adds void or vitality damage to my strikes work?It's unclear to me what counts as an ability in this context, and I'd like to have an answer for my players if they want to playtest the Necromancer and use this feature.
Anything and everything is an ability.
Read Whenever you cast a spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality.as
Whenever you would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality.
I am not aware of any void or vitality damage that would not qualify. Even if the ability is from an item or secondary source, you are still using it.
If you are currently on fire, in the mundane sense, you are not using a fire ability if someone burns themselves on you.
If you are currently on fire, in the mundane sense, you are not using a fire ability if someone burns themselves on you.
Torch Goblin is an ability that does just that though... :P
If you are currently on fire, in the mundane sense, you are not using a fire ability if someone burns themselves on you.Torch Goblin is an ability that does just that though... :P
And without an ability like that, the persistent damage from being on fire would not normally harm someone who is grappling you.
And without an ability like that, the persistent damage from being on fire would not normally harm someone who is grappling you.If you are currently on fire, in the mundane sense, you are not using a fire ability if someone burns themselves on you.Torch Goblin is an ability that does just that though... :P
I mean, thats definatly a gm call, if one of my players tried to grapple a foe who was activly on fire i would probobly initiate some reciprical damage
If you are currently on fire, in the mundane sense, you are not using a fire ability if someone burns themselves on you.
What set you on fire - an item or a spell they are still abilities.
You can make an argument about whether or not YOU are using it or if it is YOUR ability. That is something a GM could pick up on. But for me it still an ability you are using.
And without an ability like that, the persistent damage from being on fire would not normally harm someone who is grappling you.
If someone is grabbing and rolling around with something that is on fire, I'd expect them to take fire damage. You grab the wrong end of a Torch, and you take fire damage.
I mean, you grapple a Black Pudding, you take acid damage because it's covered in acid. You grapple a Living Tar and you might be stuck because it's covered [or IS] in tar. I mean they don't spell out that grappling a Striding Fire would cause fire damage, but I personally wouldn't be surprised that someone would take damage.
Secondly, it was besides the point; Agonarchy picked something as an example that was LITERALLY a spelled-out ability that runs counter to his point.
I did not call out an ability of any kind. :p
If you fall into a vat of flaming oil which is deemed to be sufficient to catch someone else on fire - as I said, in the mundane sense - that being on fire is not an ability. It is possibly a condition, affliction, or effect, but it's closer to an environmental condition that happens to be localized on a person.
I did not call out an ability of any kind. :p
What you described WAS ability goblins have a feat for. That was my point and why I made the post.
Secondly, mundane has no bearing on whether something is an ability.
If you fall into a vat of flaming oil which is deemed to be sufficient to catch someone else on fire - as I said, in the mundane sense - that being on fire is not an ability. It is possibly a condition, affliction, or effect, but it's closer to an environmental condition that happens to be localized on a person.
ability [page 452, player core 1]: "This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules."
So a condition, affliction, effect or even an environmental condition all count as abilities, as they "provide an exception to the basic rules". It in NO way matters why there is an exception, so anything that would damage someone the grappler alters the normal rules and is an ability. So if someone takes burn from grappling someone, no matter if it was a goblin feat or because the target is on fire, it was because of an ability that caused it. Ability is referring to a RULE that alters the normal game flow, no matter who or what causes it.
Goblins having an ability that vaguely resembles the scene does not equate to me actually describing that ability. Being two degrees from Kevin Bacon does not actually make one Kevin Bacon.
Note the abilities are explicitly exceptions and the reference are feats, spells, etc. They are the elements that allow to do more than move and strike in generic ways. Environmental effects are not exceptions. Water being boiling is not an ability of the water unless the DM chooses to characterize it as such, nor with acid lakes, etc. Otherwise the concept could be said to only apply to house rules and GM fiat, as feats and spells and disease are not exceptions.
Pathfinder does assume that basic standard word usage is in effect. When the definition no longer resembles the English word used there is likely an interpretation error.
I agree with Gortle. Even in the case of the weapon, the Rune itself is not one of your abilities but the Strike you use to ultimately deal void/vitality damage is one of your abilities. So, yes, every time you deal such damage you benefit from Mastery of Life and Death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. At first I wanted to answer exactly like that. But then the definition of ability says: " rules that provide an exception to the basic rules". But Strike is one of the basest of the basic rules. Using this definition Strike absolutely can't be an ability at all.
I have hard time considering that something you do is not an ability.
Also, it'll raise the question of what is "basic" and what is "an exception". And you can expect a lot of table variations on that matter.I think I'll stick to the most basic English term for "ability". And being able to Strike is as such an "ability".
As the question is raised, there's certainly a chance for multiple interpretations. I'd certainly stick to mine/Gortle's as it's rather simple to apply and I tend to err on player side in case of ambiguity unless there's an obvious exploit.
Well, I see that it is complicated. I think that for now, I will make it work for everything that allows to do void or vitality damage. And as advised, I will be careful if my players seek to exploit this or not.
Thanks to all for your answers.
My hot take, if it's coming from items I wouldn't count it as GM.
But anything that comes from your class feats, general feats, skill feats, ancestry feats or anything that is derived from your inherent being I would count.
But like, that's just my opinion man.
I do agree that the glossary definition is unhelpful. Even though a basic game design reading makes it clear that it would apply to character features of all kinds, it's not clear that "abilities granted by items" is a valid notion. Or indeed "abilities granted by circumstances".
If this is in a home game, I would just interpret it as widely as possible. It is easier than trying to think about every edge case especially relative to the likely marginal balance shift it would go either way. Fewer roadblocks and all that.
I honestly think even a PFS GM would be well-supported for an open interpretation barring specific rules guidance from the org.
Goblins having an ability that vaguely resembles the scene does not equate to me actually describing that ability. Being two degrees from Kevin Bacon does not actually make one Kevin Bacon.
It's Kevin Bacon vs Kevin Bacon with a fake plastic mustache... the degrees of separation is negligible. Both are about people on fire, in a mundane sense, and people taking damage for grappling them. There is nothing you can say that would convince me that they aren't virtually identical...
Environmental effects are not exceptions. Water being boiling is not an ability of the water unless the DM chooses to characterize it as such, nor with acid lakes, etc. Otherwise the concept could be said to only apply to house rules and GM fiat, as feats and spells and disease are not exceptions.
Environmental effects ARE exceptions as they aren't what normally happens. In base game you don't have high winds, boiling water, ect. Now that might be normal for the game you run or for the area you go to, but that doesn't make them not abilities. Same for feats and spells and disease as they are things that aren't normal for the base game. Everyone isn't diseased or can cast spells, hence they create exceptions. If you don't think these things are abilities, then what do you think is one? Nothing about abilities suggests that there has to be an active element to an ability, for instance.
Now as to who's ability something is, that's DM fiat, as the rules don't go into that.