Does the reaction from Mind of Menace triggers when the character with mind of menace enters an aura of Frightful Presence?
In my opinion it doesn't since an aura is not targeted and is not an action, but I have a player that seems to think it does...who can help me here?
But when it says "uses", states that there is an action and auras are emanations that continually ebbs out from you, you are not using anything. If that were the case it would say something like "when you are affected by a mental effect", instead of "a creature that you can see uses a mental effect against you". For me the wording it's completely wrong for the trigger and doesn't seem very clear. Using implies an action and that's the problem with that. But I'll take that into consideration.
My initial read would be to allow Mind of Menace to work, as there's an assault on one's mind occurring. Trouble is that this aura is typically passive, and could be triggered even while the monster's asleep! Oy, is that really using a mental effect or are we in the same "it depends" territory as "hostile action" re: invisibility?
Except that'd get wonky depending on who approaches whom and with what level of awareness or even aggression. IMO a little reflection clarifies that although auras are passive effects, they're still in use as in the monster is always using its aura. So if that aura tries to instill a mental effect against someone that's enough to trigger Mind of Menace. Just imagine if one's aura slashed people apart or drove them permanently insane. "Yeah, but I wasn't 'using' it!" seems hardly a counterargument when one's aura destroys all those around.
Also I'd rule this way since PF2 is written in straightforward language, departing from previous editions where legalistic readings led to parsing beyond what any devs could predict and account for. I doubt they debated the use of the word "uses" when the spell is meant to rebuke any mental attack...whether the attacker intended it or not. (I might make a rare exception for a cursed being who truly does not want their aura to harm anybody.)
Then why the aura entry in the Monster Core says this?:
A monster's aura automatically affects everything within a specified emanation around that monster. The monster doesn't need to spend actions on the aura; rather, the aura's effects are applied at specific times, such as when a creature ends its turn within the aura or when creatures enter the aura. If an aura does nothing but deal damage, its entry lists only the radius, damage, and saving throw. Such auras deal this damage to a creature when the creature enters the aura and when a creature starts its turn in the aura. A creature can take damage from the aura only once per round. The GM might determine that a monster's aura doesn't affect its own allies. For example, a creature might be immune to a monster's frightful presence if they have been around each other for a long time.
I seem to think that this spell for the level of it and the fact that it doesn't even have heighten, only would trigger for things that are actions against you...and for the straightforward language, that is correct for the most part, but this triggers its not that straightforward...
Use - 1. take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing or achieving something; employ.
2. take or consume (an amount) from a limited supply.
In this case I believe they made a mistake, its not that straightforward and they should correct it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have an "aura of death" and approach an enemy then obviously I'm using it against them. Same with enemies plural, same with enemies expected to exist like invisible or stealthy ones, and same with unexpected enemies because I've got this darn aura active (and it doesn't matter whether or not I can turn it off). Am I to exclude enemies that approach me? Seems to get into wonky territory to get too particular here.
As NorrKnekten's addressing, "use" includes a fairly broad swath of affairs, and I'd say is simply the default language if one's writing rules in everyday speech (like Paizo explicitly says it does). So I don't think there's any mistake and I do think it's straightforward if the counterargument involves going to the dictionary definition of "use" which is exactly the legalistic form of interpretation that Paizo avoids.
If one were to rewrite this in straightforward language, wouldn't one simply say "uses a mental effect"? Seems like alternatives would either sound contrived or have their own flaws if examined too rigorously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The enemy spending actions on a qualifying effect is not required in order to trigger Mind of Menace. The Fight with Fear reaction is still triggered by free action abilities or permanent effects such as Frightful Presence.
If you are having to go to the dictionary and pull out a particular definition of 'use' in order to get the ruling that you are hoping for, then you must realize that your logic is on shaky ground, yes?
Actually no, but it's ok, I don't want any particular ruling, I actually only care to understand how it works with things that are not uses and definitely are more things like applications. If the trigger would have said apply instead of use, I would have no quarrel with it. But nah, it is what it is, they choose to go with that word instead of the other.
And again my problem is that the auras are not something that the monster can control, its something that is there and acts on its own, the monster cannot shut it down or do nothing with it.
Look at this ability, its an aura and the graveknight doesn't have the option to not do it, it happens automatically, so its not something that he uses on you, but ok, I get what you all say, and going to the dictionary is not bad, it gives clarity but what the hell do I know about it. After all if there was a mistake they would have done an errata about it so nah, there you go...
Sacrilegious Aura (aura, divine, void) 30 feet. When a creature in the aura uses a vitality spell or ability, the graveknight automatically attempts to counteract it, with the listed counteract modifier.
And by the way in this system a Free Action is still an action, but who cares. An aura its not an action is a permanent effect, it says so in the monster core.
A monster's aura automatically affects everything within a specified emanation around that monster. The monster doesn't need to spend actions on the aura; rather, the aura's effects are applied at specific times, such as when a creature ends its turn within the aura or when creatures enter the aura. If an aura does nothing but deal damage, its entry lists only the radius, damage, and saving throw. Such auras deal this damage to a creature when the creature enters the aura and when a creature starts its turn in the aura. A creature can take damage from the aura only once per round. The GM might determine that a monster's aura doesn't affect its own allies. For example, a creature might be immune to a monster's frightful presence if they have been around each other for a long time.
But like I said, case closed, it works like it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Application" and "use" (noun) are synonyms. (Merriam-Webster)
The meaning of "apply" could be equally twisted.
We have addressed your repeated points. We understand, yet agree with your player. Paizo writes in a straightforward, everyday-English style which shouldn't require dictionaries (unless English is a foreign language to you, in which case this makes more sense). Hopefully this hasn't become a problem at your table given how minor an issue it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it has not, and yes english is a second language...porque usar y aplicar no son lo mismo en mi idioma, pueden ser sinonimos pero no son lo mismo. Quizas por eso me confundi. Pero gracias por la ayuda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't think languages are an issue here. When it's game mechanics anything you have that affects others - you are doing that, no question. You are the source and the reason, you can't remove yourself from the situation. Language nuances don't matter. Unless something explicitly says otherwise.
What you're describing is a property of language that can be and often is lost in translation. I would perhaps not discard out of hand the experience of NorrKnekten and Mymyr, both of whom are multilingual and are explicitly discussing how certain words end up with different implications, even different meanings, when translated a certain way. In this case, "use" in English can describe both active and passive usage, which works perfectly for mind of menace and its catch-all reaction, but as Mymyr describes, the term that was employed in the translation generally refers more to active usage, whereas the more catch-all term would be closer to the word "apply". This is, in fact, the core nuance that spurred them to ask for advice in the first place, so it very much does matter in this discussion.