A Shambler can use Vine Lash to Strike each creature within reach, increasing MAP only after all the attacks are made.
If a summoner is noncritically hit and their eidolon is critically hit by the same Vine Lash, does their shared HP pool only take the critical damage because that's the most damaging part of this Vine Lash? Or does it also take the noncritical damage because they are separate Strikes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely take damage from both attacks.
Summoner does have to pay a lot for their pseudo-hybrid chassis, but their two-body problem isn't only a negative.
Sometimes it's nice, such as the SMN chugging elixirs while the eidolon is grappling, but sometimes you do have to deal with eating two strikes at once. Better hope the foe rolls low damage, 1 hit + 1 crit might be oneshot territory, lol.
The attacks are solved separately, but the damage is only the highest.
...Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable)...
This almost a general rule. Other things like kineticist's Crawling Fire does the same. If something shares HP between 2 creatures and both would be damaged by the same damage effect, you only apply the highest damage, not the damage twice.
But summoners can invert this logic using Protective Bond but unfortunately doesn't work against multi-target effects like Vine Slash only vs AoE.
Idk, if a multi-strike ability counts as "both subjects to the same effect"
then what about SMN & eidolon each getting 1 hit of a Flurry of Blows?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk, if a multi-strike ability counts as "both subjects to the same effect"
then what about SMN & eidolon each getting 1 hit of a Flurry of Blows?
Vine Lash can only Strike each creature within reach once, making it slightly more akin to fireball in that it can't typically hurt a PC multiple times. Flurry of Blows is designed to be able to hurt the same target multiple times, but you are right that if used against both the summoner and eidolon, Flurry isn't much different from Vine Lash.
Another example, If both summoner and eidolon gets hit by Force Barrage (1 missile on summoner, 2 on eidolon). Does that mean you just remove a missile? That to me sounds like a rather silly notion thats far outside of the intent that Summoners shouldnt take the same damage twice from multi-target stuff.
I would think that the Force Barrage is all one effect. It's not like the missiles are subordinate actions, so this case seems clearer to me. But you wouldn't just remove a missile. You'd roll the missile damage for both and only apply the higher one. So if a 4 on the d4 is rolled against the summoner and two 1s are rolled against the eidolon, the total damage is 4+1=5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't count separate strikes of the same activity to be the same effect.
While its all the same activity the separate strikes are per definition separate subordinate actions and their own effects, Worth noting, Crawling Fire explicitly mentions Area of Effects, and Summoner uses Area of effects as their example.
Well, yes. The Strikes are each their own effect. But those effects are still carried out as part of the larger Vine Lash effect, right? It seems like the summoner and eidolon are both getting damaged by the same Vine Lash effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that the SMN text is a bit unique to the class, so it can be easy to slip into RaI vibes as to where the line is supposed to be.
The term "effect" itself is actually hella vague. How many "effects" are inside one action? What about one activity? We can at least say that one effect is a smaller unit of game-stuff than 1A is. An "effect" is definitely not an "activity," which may generate/contain many damaging effects.
My take is that "one effect" is actually talking from the attacking actor's point of view. If you look at the rule from that PoV, it makes it possible to adjudicate the "only hurt one" rule with consistency.
This is why casting one fireball is one damaging effect that does trigger SMN's "only hurt one" rule, but that rule does *not* trigger for something like a split Flurry of Blows. Those are two different strikes that each contain their own "damage effects."
I don't think any of the multi-strike examples thus far would trigger the "only hurt one" rule. Nor do I think Force Barrage would trigger it. The actor dedicates a number of missiles into each target separately; it's one spell cast that triggers "multiple effects."
The edge case I would rule that does trigger the "only hurt one" rule is the Fighter/ect feat Swipe.
This is a single melee swing, but it can hit and apply damage to two target independently. Imo this is the perfect example to reveal where the line is. Even though it's not an AoE spell, the actor is rolling one Strike and inflicting damage upon multiple targets via the same "effect."
This imo would trigger the SMN rule, and the PC would only take the worst damage btwn the double-hit.
But you wouldn't just remove a missile. You'd roll the missile damage for both and only apply the higher one. So if a 4 on the d4 is rolled against the summoner and two 1s are rolled against the eidolon, the total damage is 4+1=5.
Well, yes. The Strikes are each their own effect. But those effects are still carried out as part of the larger Vine Lash effect, right? It seems like the summoner and eidolon are both getting damaged by the same Vine Lash effect.
Lol. You are half-conceding that the opposing argument is right, but still doubling down and saying that you are right instead.
"I'm not going to narratively remove a missile from Force Barrage. I'm just going to mathematically remove its effect from the damage calculation."
"The subordinate action Strikes are different effects, but since they are both part of the same activity then they really aren't separate effects."
It doesn't work. It isn't sound logic. Or debating in good faith.
If an ability is MAP reduction or action compression (or both), then the subordinate actions are definitely different and separate effects. That applies for Vine Lash, Flurry of Blows, Force Barrage, and Blazing Bolt. Among others.
I think from a balance perspective, whether the overall effect can normally damage its targets multiple times is key here.
You wouldn't allow an enemy to take double damage from fireball simply because they are crammed in a tiny space. Fireball is balanced around the assumption that each creature is only getting damaged once.
Vine Lash is restricted to one Strike per creature because attacking the same creature repeatedly with no MAP is quite dangerous. Same goes for 2 action Blazing Bolt, which at rank 3+ is basically fireball with an attack roll.
I fear that allowing such effects to bypass that once per target limitation on the basis of "Well, it is all one effect, but isn't it basically just action compression of two discrete effects?" is dangerous, especially if only one class is susceptible to such a dire effect.
But things like Flurry of Blows and Force Barrage? They are already designed with focus fire against one creature in mind. A summoner on the receiving end of these isn't in more danger than anyone else, so I'm more okay with these bypassing the same-effect protection.
But you wouldn't just remove a missile. You'd roll the missile damage for both and only apply the higher one. So if a 4 on the d4 is rolled against the summoner and two 1s are rolled against the eidolon, the total damage is 4+1=5.Well, yes. The Strikes are each their own effect. But those effects are still carried out as part of the larger Vine Lash effect, right? It seems like the summoner and eidolon are both getting damaged by the same Vine Lash effect.Lol. You are half-conceding that the opposing argument is right, but still doubling down and saying that you are right instead.
"I'm not going to narratively remove a missile from Force Barrage. I'm just going to mathematically remove its effect from the damage calculation."
"The subordinate action Strikes are different effects, but since they are both part of the same activity then they really aren't separate effects."
It doesn't work. It isn't sound logic. Or debating in good faith.
If an ability is MAP reduction or action compression (or both), then the subordinate actions are definitely different and separate effects. That applies for Vine Lash, Flurry of Blows, Force Barrage, and Blazing Bolt. Among others.
My argument was that the subordinate Strikes are both their own effects and part of a larger Vine Lash effect. I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.
By the time they meet Mr. Shambler, they should be okay. It's not like they're stuck with a puny three actions. In that first shambler round, a L4 summoner probably gave both her figures a move action via tandem movement (positioning one forward, one back), then acted together to blast with a spell at range while striking it with a melee attack.
Or...
The shambler used its Shamble reaction to Strike the summoner. Then it went first with its +18 Stealth for initiative and used Vine Lash on both the summoner and her eidolon. The summoner got crit and sent to dying 2 while the eidolon also got crit and sent to dying 4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PC1 defines what are effects in 2 different pages:
An effect is the rules term for anything that occurs in the game world. Effects might have limited range, and you may need to designate targets or create areas for your effects. Areas include bursts from a single point, cones blasting out from you, emanations surrounding you or another creature, or straight lines.
Many spells, magic items, and feats create specific effects, and your character will be subject to effects caused by monsters, hazards, the environment, and other characters.
Effects sometimes require checks, but not always. Casting a fly spell on yourself creates an effect that allows you to soar through the air, but casting the spell does not require a check. Conversely, using the Intimidate skill to Demoralize a foe does require a check, and your result on that check determines the effect's outcome.
Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use. Firing a bow, moving to a new space, or taking something out of your pack all resolve instantly. Other effects instead last for a certain duration. Once the duration has elapsed, the effect ends. The rules generally use the following conventions for durations, though spells have some special durations.For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target's next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target's next 3 turns”), which means that the effect's duration decreases at the end of the creature's turn, rather than the start.
Instead of lasting a fixed number of rounds, a duration might end only when certain conditions are met (or cease to be true). If so, the effects last until those conditions are met.
Some effects can be ended early with the Dismiss action. An effect with the sustained duration lasts until the end of your next turn, but it can be extended as described in the Sustain action.
Abilities that generate an effect typically work within a specified range or a reach. Most spells and abilities list a range—the maximum distance from the creature or object creating the effect in which the effect can occur.Ranged and thrown weapons have a range increment. Attacks with such weapons work normally up to that range. Attacks against targets beyond that range take a –2 penalty, which worsens by 2 for every additional multiple of that range, to a maximum of a –10 penalty after five additional range increments. Attacks beyond this range are not possible. For example, using a shortbow, your attacks take no penalty against a target up to 60 feet away, a –2 penalty if a target is over 60 and up to 120 feet away, a –4 if they're over 120 and up to 180 feet away, and so on, up to a maximum of 360 feet.
Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon. Melee Strikes rely on reach. Your reach is typically 5 feet, but weapons with the reach trait can extend this. Larger creatures can have greater reach; for instance, an ogre has a 10-foot reach. Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally. Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally: 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on.
Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn't match restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted.Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your character don't know what the effect is, such as if your character is unconscious, you still decide if you're willing.
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You don't count as your own ally. If it isn't clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy.
Some effects occupy an area of a specified shape and size. An area effect always has a point of origin and extends out from that point. There are four types of areas: emanations, bursts, cones, and lines. See Area for details.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect's area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn't matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren't totally solid. Usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there's no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn't apply to that target. For example, if there's a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that's within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn't need to attempt a save against it. Likewise, any ongoing effects created by an ability with an area cease to affect anyone who moves outside of the line of effect.
Some effects require you to have line of sight to your target. As long as you can precisely sense the area (as described in Precise Senses) and it is not blocked by a solid barrier (as described in Cover), you have line of sight. An area of darkness prevents line of sight if you don’t have darkvision, but portcullises and other obstacles that aren’t totally solid do not. Usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain line of sight, though the GM makes the final call.
So effects are basically anything that could be inserted into a stat block or works like one. They have a target or AoE, they have a duration (that who aren't set are considered instantaneous) and have a range or reach.
I also will add the effects part of Actions to here:
...
Single actions can be completed in a very short time. They're self-contained, and their effects are generated within the span of that single action.Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.
...
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
...
An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that's different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action.An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don't have to spend additional actions to perform them—they're already factored into the activity's required actions. (See Subordinate Actions.)
You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter, you lose all the actions you committed to it.
...
So based in all this text. An activity or action have their own effect, even if this effect contains a subordinated action that will have its effects added to it with their normal or modified effects.
So RAW things like Vine Slash, Flurry of Blows, Act Together, Magic Missile Force Barrage or whatever actions or activity is currently running it is a single effect maybe a greater effect that agglomerates all many different actions as mentioned by activity general rule but still is a single effect.
So no matter if a creature is doing a Flurry of Blows agains the Eidolon and other against the Summoner or is another summoner making the Eidolon to Strike another Eidolon while the Summoner casts a spell agains the another summoner they still are considered a single effect because all them are part of same activity or action and only the greater of them would apply.
Obs.: Including the Flurry of Blows that points that if you hit the same cratures with both Strikes of the Flurry of Blows you sum the damage before apply resistances and weakness turning it into a single damage in practice.
But RAI, IMO, this point about the shared HP rules is to just to avoid that the summoner/eidolon could that an damage effect duplicated because it will affect both eidolon and summoner. So only the effects that naturally are impossible to damage a single creature twice also should not affect the eidolon/summoner shared HP twice too, instead you apply the highest damage. Having this in mind, to make Vine Slash to damage both Eidolon and Summoner shared HP twice looks wrong, it's TGTBT for monster side, instead looks more right just apply the highest damage.
While other effect that doesn't have problem to affect the same creatures twice like Flurry of Blows or an Act Together should be fine to apply the both damage normally.
About separate the Eidolon+Summoner shared HP rules from Crawling Fire they are not only one thing that uses the shared HP and tries to avoid duplicated damage effects. Other things in the game exists like Bilocation spell or Necrologist's horde. The general idea of all the are the same. If an HP is shared so and effect that would affect this shared pool twice should be substituted by the highest one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you see what Yuri posted about activities?
Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.
This can be applied to Vine Lash as well. Vine Lash is an activity in which the shambler uses multiple Strike actions to generate the activity's effect.
Did they developers consider Act Together, Force Barrage, Flurry of Blows, and other things that can be either focus fired or spread out over multiple targets? No, probably not. Their concern was presumably over area effects in particular, since they are designed to not affect the same creature twice and they didn't want summoners getting completely steamrolled by them.
But the same concern applies to Vine Lash. The only real difference between fireball and Vine Lash is that Vine Lash is settled with attack rolls instead of Reflex saves. And it does no damage on a miss of course.
You say that any competent summoner keeps their eidolon far away from them to avoid Vine Lash and other Whirlwind-Strike-like abilities. But there are plenty of situations that require you to be near or even adjacent to your eidolon, so a summoner and eidolon both getting fireballed or Vine Lashed isn't always coming down to skill. Which is why summoners have the mitigating rule in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if Vine Lash can only affect the Summoner/Eidolon once, does that also apply to Draconic Frenzy? That's also a two action activity that gives multiple attacks:
The dragon makes two claw Strikes and one wing Strike in any order.
You'd have to assume the answer is "no" because this one allows you to attack a single target three times, and taking only the worst of three separate strikes makes no sense. Likewise, taking more damage if the summoner gets hit twice than if the summoner and eidolon each get hit once (because the dragon split attacks) also doesn't make much sense.
But that makes the difference really, really fuzzy since both it and Vine Lash are 2 action activities and both do strikes. The only difference is Vine Lash can hit everything in an area once, while Draconic Frenzy is simply "make a bunch of strikes with action compression".
Because of how wonky this gets if you include seperate strikes as "The same effect", I tend to discount that and say that it doesn't work on Vine Lash. Because if it does, the logic for why it doesn't work on Draconic Frenzy is very, very sketchy. I also find it odd to say that two different strikes "are the same effect".
Yeah, that makes it rough for a Summoner. That's how it goes sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Tridus is right. Fuzzy as rules are on this kind of inheritance, assuming that "suffer only the greater of the two effects" applies to the sub-actions Vine Lash uses I think leads to fairly inconsistent behavior for other composite actions, so I would rule that the Strikes are separate effects even if it doesn't work out well for the Summoner.
More broadly, I think this is one of the unfortunate side effects of 2e's single-target vs. AoE dichotomy: classes good at single-target damage like Strikes are generally not allowed to have strong DCs for AoE, and sometimes individual creatures or character options try to circumvent this by letting a character make lots of Strikes as a pseudo-AoE instead of having enemies make saves against a weaker DC. Ideally, creatures and characters should be able to do what they need to do in a manner that's consistent, and that doesn't lead to cases like double-dipping into damage against a character with two bodies and a shared HP pool, but that's the price to pay for 2e's strong niche protection
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be easier. Like, yes, VIne Lash is a single effect. Only it's not an effect that damages summoner and eidolon. The effect is 'you make a lot of Strikes'. There's no damage. Damage appears only in each separate subordinate Strike which do have their own effect and you can't damage summoner and eidolon with the same Strike twice.
Are you trying to tell me that the most damaging offensive tool in the Shambler's arsenal, a tool whose only job is to do damage, doesn't do any damage? Simply because that damage is delivered with subordinate Strikes? Does Reactive Strike do no damage? Does Vicious Swing do no damage?
So, if Vine Lash can only affect the Summoner/Eidolon once, does that also apply to Draconic Frenzy?
You'd have to assume the answer is "no" because this one allows you to attack a single target three times, and taking only the worst of three separate strikes makes no sense. Likewise, taking more damage if the summoner gets hit twice than if the summoner and eidolon each get hit once (because the dragon split attacks) also doesn't make much sense.
This weirdness is a valid reason to rule that focus-fireable abilities (Draconic Frenzy, Force Barrage, etc.) don't count if they happen to be used against both the summoner and the eidolon. But I don't see why that same ruling is needed for Vine Lash and other things that can't be focus fired.
Especially since doing so causes Vine Lash to hit twice as hard as it's designed to. That's not just "rough." That's nasty. A bad match up for a class occurs when you can only target high saves, or the enemy can target your lowest save, or the damage you specialize in just doesn't work. This is just "you take double damage from what is substantially an area effect, even though you aren't supposed to because that's extremely dangerous." There's a good reason weakness doesn't double the damage in this game.
Besides, I don't see why a dragon would be splitting its attacks like this in the first place. In most cases, continuing to attack the same creature until it hits zero HP is the way to go, especially if hitting one creature is noticeably somehow also hurting the other anyway.
I'm playing a summoner now, IMO the class is well balanced already, and doesn't need the damage resistance buff interpretation you're giving it.
I don't consider this interpretation a buff. I simply consider this interpretation:
- RAW, because Vine Lash is an effect that damages multiple targets once each (using Strikes) and therefore qualifies,
- RAI, because Vine Lash damaging the same PC twice is bad for all the same reasons fireball damaging the same PC twice is bad, and
- RAF, though your mileage may vary.
So, if Vine Lash can only affect the Summoner/Eidolon once, does that also apply to Draconic Frenzy? That's also a two action activity that gives multiple attacks:
The dragon makes two claw Strikes and one wing Strike in any order.You'd have to assume the answer is "no" because this one allows you to attack a single target three times, and taking only the worst of three separate strikes makes no sense. Likewise, taking more damage if the summoner gets hit twice than if the summoner and eidolon each get hit once (because the dragon split attacks) also doesn't make much sense.
But that makes the difference really, really fuzzy since both it and Vine Lash are 2 action activities and both do strikes. The only difference is Vine Lash can hit everything in an area once, while Draconic Frenzy is simply "make a bunch of strikes with action compression".
Because of how wonky this gets if you include seperate strikes as "The same effect", I tend to discount that and say that it doesn't work on Vine Lash. Because if it does, the logic for why it doesn't work on Draconic Frenzy is very, very sketchy. I also find it odd to say that two different strikes "are the same effect".
Yeah, that makes it rough for a Summoner. That's how it goes sometimes.
I also need to point that such things comparing abilities that already allows damaging the same target multiple times is only relevant in teorycraft. During 99% of cases (may if the ability movex the eidolon/summoner far from reach these things could find some utility) because in practice to use abilities that already allows damaging the same creature multiple times makes basically 0 reason to distribute its attacks.
For example. Why to use Draconic Frenzy that could have all its attacks focused into summoner in distribute attacks instead of focus all attacks into the weakest/easier target? Remember also that the link between summoner and eidolon was created to be easily noticed. So such theorycrafts already are suboptimal since the very begining.
Maybe the designers already accounted to this when created this rule.
I also need to point that such things comparing abilities that already allows damaging the same target multiple times is only relevant in teorycraft.
"X is only relevant in theorycraft" is, I find, an overused argument that isn't as relevant to as many discussions as people think. In this particular case, the discussion isn't even about practicalities versus theorycrafting, it's determining how to rule composite actions with regards to the Summoner and their Eidolon's shared HP pool: if we are to assume it's RAW for every composite action to have only the worse of their individual subordinate actions affect either of the two, then this leads to inconsistent behavior with focus-fire composite actions such as Draconic Frenzy, which absolutely can and do happen even against two bodies belonging to the same character. If we want to house rule a distinction in order to prevent actions like Vine Lash from messing up Summoners, then that is perfectly valid and I'd support it, but if we want to assert that this is part of the rules, then the case needs to be argued from the rules themselves, and I'm seeing very little of that used to support the notion that Vine Lash only affects the Summoner once and Draconic Frenzy as many times as it hits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also need to point that such things comparing abilities that already allows damaging the same target multiple times is only relevant in teorycraft."X is only relevant in theorycraft" is, I find, an overused argument that isn't as relevant to as many discussions as people think. In this particular case, the discussion isn't even about practicalities versus theorycrafting, it's determining how to rule composite actions with regards to the Summoner and their Eidolon's shared HP pool: if we are to assume it's RAW for every composite action to have only the worse of their individual subordinate actions affect either of the two, then this leads to inconsistent behavior with focus-fire composite actions such as Draconic Frenzy, which absolutely can and do happen even against two bodies belonging to the same character. If we want to house rule a distinction in order to prevent actions like Vine Lash from messing up Summoners, then that is perfectly valid and I'd support it, but if we want to assert that this is part of the rules, then the case needs to be argued from the rules themselves, and I'm seeing very little of that used to support the notion that Vine Lash only affects the Summoner once and Draconic Frenzy as many times as it hits.
By RAW, Vine Lash is an effect that damages both, so only the greater effect applies. Draconic Frenzy can also technically be such an effect, which can lead to the RAW weirdness of the summoner taking less damage overall if the dragon happens to not focus fire. If anything needs a house rule for the summoner, it's Draconic Frenzy, not Vine Lash.
And in most cases, Draconic Frenzy isn't going to have this problem anyway, even without a house rule. If the dragon simply focuses all its attacks on one target (something it usually wants to do anyway), then the summoner and eidolon are not both subject to the effect, so the rule doesn't apply and the damage goes through normally.
As for further support from the rules, just look at the relevant rule in the class feature itself.
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.
The rule addresses the overall effect, which in the example is the area effect itself. Then it also refers to the damage suffered by each target as an individual effect and claims that only the greater of the two applies. If even a fireball can be broken down into its individual effects on each target yet still qualify for this rule, why should Vine Lash be any different?
You've been answered already, with examples. A fireball is one effect. Vine Lash's effect is not the damage of the Strikes. Its effect is to enable the shambler to do the Strikes in the way it describes. Vine Lash's Strikes are subordinate actions and each is a separate effect. They are not "the same effect"
The haste spell enables Strikes. Vine Lash has the user actually make the Strikes as part of the action.
Is there any reason to believe an effect that uses subordinate actions somehow doesn't include those smaller effects in its own effect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, Vine Lash is an effect that damages both, so only the greater effect applies. Draconic Frenzy can also technically be such an effect, which can lead to the RAW weirdness of the summoner taking less damage overall if the dragon happens to not focus fire. If anything needs a house rule for the summoner, it's Draconic Frenzy, not Vine Lash.
As Baarogue points out, it is not Vine Lash itself that damages the Summoner or their eidolon, but the subordinate Strikes the action has the Shambler make. This interpretation is coherent with the rules for the Summoner and their eidolon's shared HP pool, and generally follows the game's underlying principle of enacting actions and their consequences in sequential order: the Shambler uses Vine Lash, Strikes one of the two targets, deals damage, then Strikes the other target, then deals damage once more. This is also meaningfully different from the Summoner and their eidolon independently rolling saving throws against the same effect. The house rule here is to withhold the consequences of the first Strike until the second Strike against the other target is made, and then apply only the worse instance of damage, which is not how things play normally but would certainly avoid dealing double damage to the poor Summoner here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what nonsense you're trying to claim with this false equivalency regarding haste. Haste gives the quickened condition with a use restriction. The Stride or Strike made with the action gained from that quickened is not subordinate to haste. They are not the same.
That was my point. Haste is an example of an action that enables Strikes without those Strikes being part of the action. I meant to point out that Vine Lash is different precisely because its Strikes are subordinate and comprise the Vine Lash effect itself.
As for your last question, Subordinates Actions says, "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action." The subordinate action has ITS normal traits and EFFECTS. Those effects aren't attributed to the larger action, and the rule goes on to say that the sub action doesn't inherit any traits from the larger action unless specified. Note that Vine Lash also doesn't have the attack trait. Because Vine Lash is not the action you're making the attacks with. Those are from the sub Strikes, and the only effect Vine Lash has besides enabling those Strikes is that MAP doesn't kick in until all the Strikes are done
Hmm... OK, I don't entirely agree with the line of reasoning that subordinate actions aren't part of the containing effects specifically because the subordinate actions have their own effects. The latter just doesn't seem to follow from the former.
But this did get me thinking about why the traits aren't inherited from the larger action. And I think a big reason for that is handling immunities.
Spectral Corruption [two-actions] (curse, divine, enchantment, incapacitation, mental) The specter makes a vile touch Strike. If it damages a living creature, the specter gains 5 temporary Hit Points and the target creature must attempt a DC 24 Will save to avoid becoming corrupted.
The subordinate Strike doesn't gain the curse, divine, enchantment, incapacitation, or mental traits. So it follows that immunity to any of those traits wouldn't protect against the Strike. But if the Strike effect were treated as part of the curse, divine, enchantment, incapacitation, and mental effect that it is subordinate to, then the immunity would work against it anyway.
And now I'm also wondering if including a subordinate Strike in a containing effect and treating them both as affecting the target would mean that such effects would suffer more flat checks against concealed and hidden. Such as a flat check to Vicious Swing then a second one to actually Strike.
Okay, I'm convinced, at least when it comes to subordinate actions. Vine Lash would need a house rule to qualify.
But why is Blazing Bolt a doomed case? All the rays are part of the same spell and aren't subordinate actions.
One spellcast can create multiple damage effects. Not all of them are single booms like fireball.
If the SMN + Eidolon are damaged by the same invisible landmine, that is the same single damage effect, and they are only hurt once.
If they both Tandem Stride and simultaneously step on two different landmines? That's 2 different damage effects. Ouch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One spellcast can create multiple damage effects. Not all of them are single booms like fireball.
If the SMN + Eidolon are damaged by the same invisible landmine, that is the same single damage effect, and they are only hurt once.
If they both Tandem Stride and simultaneously step on two different landmines? That's 2 different damage effects. Ouch.
By that logic, why stop at blazing bolt? Why don't we split the fireball down into two effects as well? The effect on the summoner and the effect on the eidolon, as determined by their Reflex saves. Even the Eidolon class feature seems to refer to these parts of the area effect as effects in and of themselves.
Is the damage not occurring simultaneously for Blazing Bolt? Would that matter?
Remember also that things like Force Barrage, Flurry of Blows, Double Slice and many other things combine their damage when hit the same target. So I'm not so sure if we consider each damage roll like an separated effect. IMO all they are still a greater effect from the main action/activity like said in Activities rule entry.
Remember also that things like Force Barrage, Flurry of Blows, Double Slice and many other things combine their damage when hit the same target. So I'm not so sure if we consider each damage roll like a separated effect. IMO all they are still a greater effect from the main action/activity like said in Activities rule entry.
I feel you’ve accidentally made the case against your own argument here, as interpreting any of these actions’ effects as the same effect is obviously nonsensical. I also think there’s a conflation here between “effect” and “action”: an effect generally follows from just one action at most, but an action can have multiple effects, such as multiple Strikes or multiple darts of force. This is meaningfully different from AoE, which is a single effect multiple creatures can make saves against.
> But why is Blazing Bolt a doomed case? All the rays are part of the same spell and aren't subordinate actions.
I just meant that you might have gotten more initial agreement with your reading if you'd started with blazing bolt as your spell example, since it resembles Vine Lash more than fireball does. But yes, it is one spell effect with no sub actions so that's why I said it would still be doomed
That over-focus on actions is a red herring for this ruling.
By that same logic, one Sustain/Command of a summon spell could get you to the same "2 different conjured creature Strikes totally are the same effect" error.
_______
That's why I used Instant Minefield for my example; it's one cast and done. No distracting sidebars about actions or sustain.
For Instant Minefield, you have a single cast that creates multiple loitering AoE damage effects. When a mine is triggered, that's one AoE damage effect. This "damage effect" is capable of triggering the SMN's "only take dmg once" clause.
But the way in which the minefield's multiple damage effects can be spaced out across time is imo super informative to reveal that the timing is not relevant. If one were to claim that all the mines are "created by one spell effect" and therefore get reduced, that would mean stepping on mines across multiple turns still triggers the SMN's "only once" rule. This is intuitively nonsense, and I don't think anyone would claim that the SMN and Eidolon triggering mines on different turns still reduces damage.
This example case reveals that there is a false equivalence made between "spell effects" and "damage effects"
One spell effect can create multiple, separate damage effects. Instant Minefield is the example I prefer because it instantly creates multiple delayed AoE booms.
Any spell that inflicts damage across turns also fits, each turn/sustain is a new, different dmg effect despite being sourced from the same spell effect. It's irrelevant if the PC needs to manually sustain to trigger the next pop of dmg, or if it's fully automatic and duration-based like Slither.
Spells like Force Barrage & Blazing Bolt doing all their magic at once is not relevant to attempting to determine if the spell is a single dmg effect that triggers the SMN thing, or if it's multiple effects that bypass it.
Furthermore, Force Barrage doesn't make for a good example because it gives itself away due to having the "combine damage for res/weakness" text.
This text itself reveals that each little shard is a separate damage effect, but the spell text overrides the normal rules around separate effects to combine their damage into one impact of damage per target. Note that this override only is for the rules specified, *only* for considerations of "bonuses or penalties to damage, resistances..."
For all other mechanics that key off of separate damage effects, those shards are *not* fused into single impacts / "single damage effects."
Meaning, 2 sets of barrage shards hitting both SMN and Eidolon most certainly are not considered to be the same damage effect. We don't need to sus out our own question flowchart to get to this particular answer, because the text already gave that away.
For Blazing Bolt, we do need to have some internalized questions / rules to figure it out.
Imo, because each fire bolt is a separate roll with separate damage, that is already enough to determine each bolt is a separate damage effect generated by the single spell cast.
Because Fireball is one damage roll...
But Blazing Bolt is a series of separate target selections, spell attacks (and so rolls), separate entities in game world, and damage rolls.
Okay, hear me out.
I'm not aware of any actual rule that says everyone caught in the same area effect suffers the same damage roll. I think we've just been doing that because it's faster than the alternative.
But since we are doing that, we could probably also be doing that with Blazing Bolt, too. For instance, the caster rolls 4d6 -> 12 fire damage and makes an attack roll against each creature to see if that damage (or double damage) is inflicted. Kind of like how we roll electric arc's 2d4 electricity and have two targets save against that damage roll result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference here is that while Electric arc is a single effect with two targets, Blazing Bolt is multiple distinct attacks each with a single target, Each of which can be further modified on individual basis. If something would alter the damage roll of a single attack it does not affect the two other attacks, or if the attacks are different to begin with then you can't have them all be the same roll to begin with.
Exactly, and this is why the "question" has an obvious answer that we all already use, but people are playing semantic games in attempts to achieve outcomes they wish would be true.
If a caster uses Sure Strike, then Blazing Bolt, the GM is not going to allow the "keep higher" roll effect to apply to both bolts, it only enhances the next attack roll. Any attempt at "but the MAP only increments after, so all the bolts are 'part of the same effect' and shot at the same--" would rightfully get shut down.
Similarly, the idea of splitting a fireball's single dmg effect per AoE creature is simply changing the game mechanics. Many spellcaster dmg buffs would be nerfed, only enhancing that first dmg pop.
It's just nonsense intended to muddy the waters and distract from the substantive details.
_________________
We genuinely already do use the notion of "damage effects" as something separate from spell effects, or other abilities that create those damage effects.
We already know for certain that some spells/abilities use single dmg effects to harm multiple creatures at once, like Fireball, while others create multiple dmg effects. Fire Ray's spell effect creating both an on-hit dmg effect, and a "square is now on fire" dmg effect, is a good example of this type. The only questions that matter are those that help us sort group A from group B.
It's pretty easy to come up with a flowchart / questions to determine which is which. We even have Strike-examples like Swipe where you *do* use a single dmg effect to hit multiple targets, so there *really* is no room to pretend that Flurry and MAP modifying sequences of Strikes are "one effect." They simply are not.
(Does anyone know of an example ability/spell where you only roll once for damage, but do that damage in multiple dmg effects? It seems too easy for that proposed check/rule to genuinely work all the time, but I've not found an ability/spell that breaks it.)
If someone wishes to buff Summoner at their table, then please just do so. Rewrite the "only hurt once" text to include multi-strike abilities if you fancy that.
But please do not attempt to twist and tie the system mechanics into knots via tortured RaW reinterpretation to achieve a niche buff like that.
|
Are you kidding me? Become aware.
I'm not aware of any actual rule that says everyone caught in the same area effect suffers the same damage roll. I think we've just been doing that because it's faster than the alternative.
This is actually a good point. The Core Rulebook should come with a dictionary, so that we can all agree on the definitions of all priors. We'll also need a common agreement on the basic rules of math. Is Principia Mathematica's Axioms good enough for you?
So that's 464 pages for the current core rulebook, 939 pages for the The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and 300 pages on proving 1+1=2. Once we put that together, we can start adding pages to get from 1+1=2 into rolling and adding dice together, or comparing results to a DC.
Or, you know, we could just assume common knowledge, and answer serious questions.