Trouble Understanding Resentment Patron

[demlin]

Your familiar seems hostile to all creatures other than you, hissing at them if they get too near. When you Cast or Sustain a hex, your familiar can curse a creature within 15 feet of it, prolonging the duration of any negative conditions affecting it by 1 round. This is a curse effect. This prolongs only conditions with a timed duration (such as “1 round” or “until the end of your next turn”) and doesn't prevent conditions from being removed by other means.

First of all, what is a negative condition. Note that the word Condition is not capitalized meaning that it does not necessarily reference conditions like Stupefied or Clumsy but could be applied on a much wider scale

"This prolongs only conditions with a timed duration" does the timer need to be on the condition itself or does it also apply to spells that inflict conditions that have a duration? What about Sustained spells? The core rules specifically lists Sustained spells as having a duration of 1 round https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2242

If the extension only applies to conditions that have a specific duration and not to spells that inflict the condition for a given duration, what about https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1500 ? The spell lists the condition duration right next to the condition, but the Duration says 1 or more rounds (see below)

[NorrKnekten]

Lets begin with the obvious, You are correct about the word condition not being capitalized but we also have to remember that said standard is for Rule Elements, That being the names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements.

Words like conditions and effects are very rarely capitalized as they are not specific mechancial elements or names of elements like that of Strike, Armor Class or the conditions themselves. so you can't really replace the reading of "This prolongs only conditions with a timed duration" with "This prolongs only effects with a timed duration"

Second, The duration would need to be on the condition itself I feel, Partly because thats what the ability says, but also because conditions typically outlast their spells, Fear for example is going to leave the target frightened even after the spell fades .

Player Core pg. 302 Spells/Durations wrote:

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).

I suppose theres a case for spells which do say "restrained for 1 round" or similar which would be magical effects and thus part of the spell. In these cases the conditions have had their normal durations either overridden or they didnt have any to begin with, So its accurate to say its a condition with a timed duration that can be extended.

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

Maybe the Resentment Witch Project guide can help you there

[demlin]

That document basically says: up to the GM.

[Easl]

demlin wrote:

First of all, what is a negative condition.

PC1 p10; An ongoing effect that changes how a character can act, or that alters some of their statistics, is called a condition. The rules for the basic conditions used in the game can be found in the Conditions Appendix at the back of this book.

So it's an ongoing effect that changes how the character can act or alters their statistics, in a bad way. Note the lack of capitalization; lower-c 'conditions' are the things like those listed in the Conditions Appendix.

Quote:

Note that the word Condition is not capitalized meaning that it does not necessarily reference conditions like Stupefied or Clumsy but could be applied on a much wider scale

Can you give an example that has come up in your game? I find that a lot of hypothetical problems disappear when you work through concrete examples of play (though it must be said that, at the same time, concrete examples often bring up other problems that aren't obvious from merely reading the book).

[Finoan]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Lets begin with the obvious, You are correct about the word condition not being capitalized but we also have to remember that said standard is for Rule Elements, That being the names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements.

Words like conditions and effects are very rarely capitalized as they are not specific mechancial elements or names of elements like that of Strike, Armor Class or the conditions themselves.

Yes, exactly. rules source.

Even trait names don't get capitalized in the rules. For example the Esoterica trait:

Thaumaturge key terms wrote:

Esoterica: The esoterica trait is present in many thaumaturge feats and class features that incorporate the various talismans, supernatural trinkets, and other objects you carry with you. Abilities that have the esoterica trait require you to be in possession of your esoterica to use them.

Other than at the start of a sentence, the trait name is not capitalized.

I usually do capitalize such things in my posts, but the rules don't.

-----

As for which conditions qualify and which don't, that is up to the table to decide.

There are a lot of edge cases.

For Dizzying Colors, I would allow extending the duration of the various conditions that it causes such as Dazzled, Stunned, and Blinded.

Prone is also a condition. And may or may not be considered 'negative' by the affected creature, especially if it was imposed on them against their will rather than through their own actions.

So how about Command. The spell and the conditions that it applies have a duration of "until the end of the target's next turn". Some named conditions that it causes are ordering the target to 'run away' (equivalent of the Fleeing condition) or drop Prone? Can the duration of those conditions be extended? How about unnamed custom conditions defined in the spell itself such as 'release what it's holding' and 'can't delay or take any reactions'? Could those be extended?

The negative conditions don't have to be magical in nature. An ally can cause the Frightened condition with Demoralize. It is debated if Frightened has a duration that qualifies. On one side of the debate, neither the condition nor the Demoralize action list a fixed amount of time that the condition lasts. On the other side, the condition effectively has a duration that lasts for exactly the number of rounds that the condition's value starts at. So Frightened 3 will last for 3 rounds, ticking down at the end of each of the turns of the affected creature.

But assuming that Frightened is allowed to qualify, then Demoralize can cause Frightened and Ongoing Misery can extend it. Other than because of the duration technicality mentioned previously, I haven't seen anyone say that Frightened shouldn't qualify.

So how about Grabbed? That is a named condition. And the Grapple action that can cause it does list a specific duration. The Success entry for Grapple imposes the Grabbed condition for a duration of 'until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes'. As long as the other removal conditions are not invoked (you move or your target succeeds at an Escape action), can Ongoing Misery extend the duration of Grabbed?

I think that these questions are all going to have to be decided at the table. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have strong opinions about several of them. But the rules don't specify sufficiently.

[Finoan]

Easl wrote:

Quote:

Note that the word Condition is not capitalized meaning that it does not necessarily reference conditions like Stupefied or Clumsy but could be applied on a much wider scale

Can you give an example that has come up in your game? I find that a lot of hypothetical problems disappear when you work through concrete examples of play

I use the custom unnamed conditions created and defined in some spells. For example the concrete example of Command. A critical failure result of Command with an order to 'release what you are holding' would qualify as...

PC1 p10 wrote:

An ongoing effect that changes how a character can act, or that alters some of their statistics

and so would qualify as a 'condition'.

It would not be a 'basic' condition that is listed in the Conditions Appendix, but that is not a requirement for being a condition.

[NorrKnekten]

I don't like that example regarding command,I really don't like that. While true from the definition in key terms, chapter 8 expands on what a condition are and how they are different from other effects.

But you are right that is something that a table would need to decide.

[Finoan]

NorrKnekten wrote:

I don't like that example regarding command,I really don't like that. While true from the definition in key terms, chapter 8 expands on what a condition are and how they are different from other effects.

Can you cite that a bit more specifically?

Currently, all I am finding is this:

Quote:

Some effects apply conditions to a creature or item. These change your state of being in some way. Conditions are persistent, lasting until the stated duration ends, the condition is removed, or terms dictated in the condition cause it to end. Full rules appear in the Conditions Appendix.

and this:

Quote:

While adventuring, characters (and sometimes their belongings) are affected by abilities and effects that apply conditions. For example, a spell or magic item might turn you invisible or cause you to be gripped by fear. 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.

Neither of which disqualify the unnamed conditions in Command.

Also, Command isn't the only spell with these types of unnamed custom conditions. Would you prefer an example of Agitate with its condition of:

Custom condition from Agitate wrote:

the target must Stride, Fly, or Swim at least once each turn or take 2d8 mental damage at the end of its turn.

[NorrKnekten]

Its more a question on how do we define conditions, and you are absolutely right that in the purest form the definition given does fit that of command.

But we also do get the statements that they affect your state of being as you have shown. or similarly

Player Core pg. 398 Rules Overview/Effects wrote:

Many effects apply conditions, which measure advantages or impediments like being blinded, frightened, or invisible.

Because I don't think that "unnamed custom condition" is the correct word or intention for this. Both Conditions and Spell Effects are effects but is it really correct to say that Command applies a condition and if so, Why would it not state that you are Controlled to perform the action.

Agitate similarly does not changes how they can act or changes any statistics. So it wouldnt be accurate to call it a condition by the previously mentioned standards.

So to me these are both spell effects, not inherent to the character, and not conditions. Ofcourse there are spell effects that apply or impose conditions. Confusion and Tangle Vine for example even if a penalty to speed is part of the spell effect and not a condition.

[Witch of Miracles]

I think it's fairly difficult to understand how command would interact with the extension, given that the RAI of the spell is that you give a single command that is obeyed once. (To be honest, it's already unclear how "drop prone" interacts with the critical failure. At best, I assume you just can't get back up...?)

Even ignoring that... let's say you extend a failure against a command to drop prone. Are you now forced to drop prone every round, as long as the spell is extended? That would be an unusually strong effect, particularly at level 1. The enemy is either forced to stay prone as long as you extend command, or spend 1 or 2 actions every turn—and the enemy can't use reactions as long as the duration is extended, either. I don't think a rank 1 spell should be able to grant effects on failure that are, in practice, on par with or better than spells of a much higher rank just because of Resentment's ability. The resentment extension puts it on par with an incapacitation effect or a rank 3 spell's failure effect, which strikes me as a good indication it probably shouldn't work with resentment. Sure, it having no effect on success is a pretty big hitch... but resentment basically turns the failure into [stunned 1 every turn] or [remain prone forever and get no reactions], which is an absurd effect for a rank 1 spell to have in this system.

I think there's a good argument that if Resentment's extension would cause the effect to gain such significant strength, it probably shouldn't qualify. And command certainly looks like "too good to be true" territory to me.

[Finoan]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Because I don't think that "unnamed custom condition" is the correct word or intention for this. Both Conditions and Spell Effects are effects but is it really correct to say that Command applies a condition and if so, Why would it not state that you are Controlled to perform the action.

Agitate similarly does not changes how they can act or changes any statistics. So it wouldnt be accurate to call it a condition by the previously mentioned standards.

So to me these are both spell effects, not inherent to the character, and not conditions. Ofcourse there are spell effects that apply or impose conditions. Confusion and Tangle Vine for example even if a penalty to speed is part of the spell effect and not a condition.

It is an effect that is of a duration and affects the stats of a character or changes what actions they can use or how they can use them.

A spell effect that causes damage wouldn't be a condition.

Command specifically wouldn't use the Controlled condition because Controlled is too broad and would allow way more than what the Command spell is wanting to allow.

How about Take Root (It is a beneficial condition, so it wouldn't qualify for Ongoing Misery because of that, but it is still a condition):

Take Root condition wrote:

The targeted creature gains a +1 circumstance bonus to their Fortitude DC against attempts to Shove them and a +1 circumstance bonus to their Reflex DC against attempts to Disarm or Trip them. This bonus also applies to saving throws against spells or effects that would attempt to remove a held item from their grasp.

That one changes the character's stats for a duration of 1 round. What is the argument that this one is not an unnamed custom condition?

Compare the condition imposed by Take Root to the named condition Clumsy:

Clumsy wrote:

You take a status penalty equal to the condition value to Dexterity-based checks and DCs, including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and skill checks using Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery.

How are the two different in intent?

[Easl]

Finoan wrote:

Easl wrote:

Can you give an example that has come up in your game? I find that a lot of hypothetical problems disappear when you work through concrete examples of play

I use the custom unnamed conditions created and defined in some spells. For example the concrete example of Command. A critical failure result of Command with an order to 'release what you are holding' would qualify as...

Thanks for your examples, Command is an interesting case. But I was really thinking about the OP and what their in-game problems are. Because maybe we can solve those for them, without having to solve the bigger harder question that, frankly, Paizo is not completely clear on.

[NorrKnekten]

Finoan wrote:

snip

But thats just the thing, Agitate doesn't change what a character can do, nor would Controlled be to broad if it came with specifications as to how like many spells do. You will also notice that Offguard is a condition but Cover is not, why? Because cover is not a state of being for the character. Just like being under the effects of Command or Agitated isnt.

The argument being that treating effects as conditions in general is not part of the rules with exception of a single line explaining the term but not its definition. We don't even see anything hinting at unnamed conditions like we get in Exploraction Activities mentioning its list as non-exhaustive, instead we get the full list of conditions. Most of which are dependant on the characters status and thus give status penalties with some exceptions as to what circumstance the character is being penalized for.

Even the example with Take Root has this, is the bonus an effect from the spell... or is it a condition imposed by the effect? And thats where I hold the stance that it is a spell effect because there is nothing calling it out as a condition and like cover its an effect you have gained.

Basically, To me the intent reads as effects being external influences. They can make you levitate, fly or otherwise harm and influence you. Conditions are internal and inherent to your character, External influence can affect the internal. Your vitality may be sapped leaving you drained, a bright flash might leave you blinded and you might be tripped, leaving you prone and vulnerable to attack.

Again, its not something i'm especially keen to argue, I've made my point and you have made yours. And with how little is actually written regarding conditions it wouldnt suprise me if the conditions appendix are the only conditions RAI with everything else being effects (.not that conditions arent effects either but.. still)

[HammerJack]

The conditions appendix is not the complete list of conditions. But where you have a new condition introduced, like Cursebound for oracles, it actually says it's a condition, instead of leaving you to define every effect as a condition.

[Xenocrat]

ctrl-F "synesth" 0/0 results.

Smdh.

[HammerJack]

Xenocrat wrote:

ctrl-F "synesth" 0/0 results.

Smdh.

That's a spell that has several effects. One of them (Clumsy 3) is a condition and can be extended. The others aren't and can't.

[Finoan]

HammerJack wrote:

But where you have a new condition introduced, like Cursebound for oracles, it actually says it's a condition, instead of leaving you to define every effect as a condition.

If you are presenting that as your opinion and ruling, that is fine and makes sense. A perfectly reasonable way to play the game.

HammerJack wrote:

One of them (Clumsy 3) is a condition and can be extended. The others aren't and can't.

But now you are stating that your ruling is the only valid one and that anyone running the game differently is not following the rules.

Now you need to show sources for that.

What rule says that a condition has to be stated explicitly as a condition in order to be a condition?

Currently the best rules source for defining what is or is not a condition is this:

Quote:

An ongoing effect that changes how a character can act, or that alters some of their statistics, is called a condition.

Which doesn't list being labeled as a condition as a requirement.

[Finoan]

NorrKnekten wrote:

You will also notice that Offguard is a condition but Cover is not, why? Because cover is not a state of being for the character. Just like being under the effects of Command or Agitated isnt.

Cover is not a state of being for a character... but Concealed is?

[Bluemagetim]

The Bleaching is a condition

[NorrKnekten]

Finoan wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

You will also notice that Offguard is a condition but Cover is not, why? Because cover is not a state of being for the character. Just like being under the effects of Command or Agitated isnt.

Cover is not a state of being for a character... but Concealed is?

I know, Weird isn't it, but it makes a bit of sense. Concealed and the other detection related conditions is all about how the creatures state all affect your senses, Typically because they arent illuminated enough or they have successfully hidden their presence to become undetected.

But cover is moreso because the attacker has physical obstacles or other creatures in the way and the target creature benefits from being harder to hit. It gets extra fun when you have cover from a creature but still don't benefit from it because they placed the origin to an AoE in a place were you dont have cover from. But if they did the same with a targeted ability like ricochet shot concealment still apply.

Both are incredibly similar and what can often be the source of cover can also give Concealed. But can Cover be considered part of the creature's state when characters relation to cover is entirely relative to line of effect.

[NorrKnekten]

Finoan wrote:

Currently the best rules source for defining what is or is not a condition is this:

Quote:

An ongoing effect that changes how a character can act, or that alters some of their statistics, is called a condition.

Which doesn't list being labeled as a condition as a requirement.

I believe that is the main point that differs between us, That line comes from the Key terms section. The full line being

Quote:

An ongoing effect that changes how a character can act, or that alters some of their statistics, is called a condition. The rules for the basic conditions used in the game can be found in the Conditions Appendix at the back of this book.

It most likely arent meant to be used as a rule. It may just be the easiest way to describe it. Similar to rounds in the same section, it is 'accurate' enough as to what a round is but in that case its not what the rules say especially when it comes to durations.

So the best rules source to me is chapter 8 and the conditions appendix which we already have established that we have different readings of. with how much weight we put towards the key terms, if it is meant to simply help a new reader parse the text. To me, if there is no properly set definition of a condition then the game has to mention what is a condition.. and it does that rather well either by calling a condition or trough capitalisation of the conditions name.

The main issue is that neither of us have enough material to convince the other. Because it just flat out doesnt exist a clear and concise definition and the actual definition is anything but.

Quote:

While adventuring, characters (and sometimes their belongings) are affected by abilities and effects that apply conditions. For example, a spell or magic item might turn you invisible or cause you to be gripped by fear. 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. See the Conditions page for a full list of conditions.

[rainzax]

Home game?

Maybe instead of defining “condition” just agree with player a list that:

1) some conditions work
2) some don’t
3) some require a Check to work

The check could be a counteract check, spell attack, or tradition check?

=)