Stunning Irruption

[Boci]

I'm reasonably certain that if the demon's entry involved a massive explosion of noise and violence, it would interrupt dinner. I don't think the fact that demons (as a general rule) don't really know how to make an entrance means that sudden and explosively violent actions don't have any effect on characters. A pit fiend would ruin the crap out of that dinner with all the jumping and screaming that'd be going on just because he walked in.

Who said anyone else was there? They could be enjoying it on their own, and suddenly a CR: 13 demon teleports in and the fighter says "Be with you in a moment". Then an 8th level paladin kicks the door down and suddenly he has to make a save or be stunned. If they also damage by flying debris, then I can sort of get how that happened, but it is a lot harder without the damage.

And they are a high level martial character. If they want to eat a wooden stake they bloody well can!

[Ssalarn]

Who said anyone else was there? They could be enjoying it on their own, and suddenly a CR: 13 demon teleports in and the fighter says "Be with you in a moment". Then an 8th level paladin kicks the door down and suddenly he has to make a save or be stunned. If they also damage by flying debris, then I can sort of get how that happened, but it is a lot harder without the damage.

And they are a high level martial character. If they want to eat a wooden stake they bloody well can!

The Paladin was trained on how to make an entrance. Seems like the real problem here is that the demon needs to learn some assertiveness how to speak up a bit.

[Boci]

The Paladin was trained on how to make an entrance.

But if its purely a show thing it should be a will save.

[Ssalarn]

But if its purely a show thing it should be a will save.

As I discussed earlier, real life would disagree with you, and the game actually does too. Phantasmal killer is a great example. It's a Will save to determine whether you believe it's real or not, but a Fortitude save to stop you from dying in fright when you believe it is real. It's the intense physical reaction to something frightening and unexpected that kills you. There's no Will save involved in Stunning Irruption because it's really, for real, happening, so you get a Fortitude save to deal with the sudden shock of that intense eruption of noise and violence.

[Boci]

As I discussed earlier, real life would disagree with you, and the game actually does too. Phantasmal killer is a great example. It's a Will save to determine whether you believe it's real or not, but a Fortitude save to stop you from dying in fright when you believe it is real. It's the intense physical reaction to something frightening and unexpected that kills you. There's no Will save involved in Stunning Irruption because it's really, for real, happening, so you get a Fortitude save to deal with the sudden shock of that intense eruption of noise and violence.

And phantasmal killer does damage if you think its real, because system shock hurts even if it doesn't kill/stun you. Not too sure the game disagrees with me.

[Deadline]

And phantasmal killer does damage if you think its real, because system shock hurts even if it doesn't kill/stun you. Not too sure the game disagrees with me.

Doesn't that one require a Fortitude save to avoid death?

[Boci]

Doesn't that one require a Fortitude save to avoid death?

Yes, pass the will you are fine, fail the will but succeed the fort nets you 3d6 damage, fail both and you are dead.

[Deadline]

Yes, pass the will you are fine, fail the will but succeed the fort nets you 3d6 damage, fail both and you are dead.

Probably not the best spell to go with as your example then. There are tons of spells that would back up your point better, like Color Spray (will save or be stunned).

Of course, I'm fairly certain there are a few stunning spells that require Fort saves, so I'm not sure this route is all that definitive.

*shrug* But like I said earlier, a person doesn't have to have solid reasoning for their opinion (I have a hatred for the BoED diplomacy rules), just acknowledge it and make your players aware of it.

[Boci]

Probably not the best spell to go with as your example then.

I wasn't the one who brought it up, besides PK deals lethal damage, the damage I assigned to SI was non-lethal to reflects its nature.

Of course, I'm fairly certain there are a few stunning spells that require Fort saves, so I'm not sure this route is all that definitive.

How many don't don't deal damage? Besides, I already said I allow magic to get away with more, because its magic, and thus has less to tie it to reality. Its martial and magic being balanced that concerns me.

*shrug* But like I said earlier, a person doesn't have to have solid reasoning for their opinion (I have a hatred for the BoED diplomacy rules), just acknowledge it and make your players aware of it.

But I do feel I have solid reasoning for my opinions, solid reasoning that has stood up to the many attempts to explain why it is wrong. Other people don't have to see things this way, but I do.

[Raven777]

The Will save on Phantasmal Killer is for realizing it's an illusion. That's why you are 100% fine if you pass the Will save : because you know the thing is not real and just ignore it. But if you fail and believe it, then the shock of your worst nightmare popping in your face requires a Fortitude save to be survived.

[Boci]

The Will save on Phantasmal Killer is for realizing it's an illusion. That's why you are 100% fine if you pass the Will save : because you know the thing is not real and just ignore it. But if you fail and believe it, then the shock of your worst nightmare popping in your face requires a Fortitude save to be survived.

Right, no one is disputing that. Ssalarn brought it up as an example of surprise/system shock in the rules and I pointed out that system shock, at least from PK, does deal damage if you think its real (and it doesn't kill you).

[Ssalarn]

Right, no one is disputing that. Ssalarn brought it up as an example of surprise/system shock in the rules and I pointed out that system shock, at least from PK, does deal damage if you think its real (and it doesn't kill you).

Shock great enough to kill you does a small amount of physical damage if it fails. I don't think anyone is claiming that a healthy adult is taking enough shock to kill them when someone bursts through the wall, just enough to activate their flight or fight response and force an unwilling biological reaction (i.e. stun or shaken). Power word stun, while not allowing a save, still goes off your general health and wellness; your hit point total determines whether or not you can be affected (making it more similar to a Fortitude save than anything else, as no amount of willpower changes the results), and the effect itself deals no damage. Stunning finale "assaults the senses" forcing the target to make a Fortitude save or be stunned but deals no damage (possibly the best comparison). The vrock's Stunning Screech is a loud and sudden noise that forces all creatures to make a Fortitude save or be stunned, but does not deal any type of damage.

So, a little digging around shows that saves vs. stunning are almost always Fortitude saves, and there's at least two examples of abilities where sudden, loud effects can stun a target who fails a Fortitude save while not otherwise dealing any damage at all.

[Psyren]

You are right though, I shouldn't have said dragon. Let's say high CR demon teleports in.

The demon would get a surprise round but teleport doesn't seem to be particularly dramatic/startling. It would be like dropping invisibility, he is just there.

[Boci]

Shock great enough to kill you does a small amount of physical damage if it fails. I don't think anyone is claiming that a healthy adult is taking enough shock to kill them when someone bursts through the wall, just enough to activate their flight or fight response and force an unwilling biological reaction (i.e. stun or shaken). Power word stun, while not allowing a save, still goes off your general health and wellness; your hit point total determines whether or not you can be affected (making it more similar to a Fortitude save than anything else, as no amount of willpower changes the results), and the effect itself deals no damage. Stunning finale "assaults the senses" forcing the target to make a Fortitude save or be stunned but deals no damage (possibly the best comparison). The vrock's Stunning Screech is a loud and sudden noise that forces all creatures to make a Fortitude save or be stunned, but does not deal any type of damage.

So, a little digging around shows that saves vs. stunning are almost always Fortitude saves, and there's at least two examples of abilities where sudden, loud effects can stun a target who fails a Fortitude save while not otherwise dealing any damage at all.

I did a little digging as well. Here is what I cam up with (I did find and note stunning finale, but you've already mentioned that).

Colour spray, Scintillating pattern, Stunning Barrier, Symbol of Stunning, Power Word: Stun, Waves of Ecstasy, Word of Chaos, = no damage, but doesn’t involve a fort save (either will save or no save).

Kai shout, Shout, Resonating Word, Sound Burst, Daze spell, = fort save, but also deals damage.

Massive damage system shock, Phantasmal killer = Fortitude save to avoid shock, but all involve taking damage. They also all kill you however.

So, that vs. the two. From this we can establish that in all likelihood, fort save stunning with no damage is an exception to the rules. There could be more exception we didn't fiend, but in there absence this is the likely conclusion.

So, you then need to ask yourself, what would you prefer?
Having another options that breaks a loosely established formula?
Add a small amount of damage to SI?

Is one answer more right than the other? Hell no, unless RAW is a particular consideration and you would like to avoid even small tweaks to it.

The demon would get a surprise round but teleport doesn't seem to be particularly dramatic/startling. It would be like dropping invisibility, he is just there.

I consider a powerful demon suddenly being there to be about on par with someone kicking the door down.

[Psyren]

II consider a powerful demon suddenly being there to be about on par with someone kicking the door down.

And you're certainly free to houserule it to behave similarly but nothing in the RAW considers them equivalent.

[Boci]

And you're certainly free to houserule it to behave similarly but nothing in the RAW considers them equivalent.

I just covered this in my previous post. Whilst loose, there is a formula that correlates to what I am saying.

[Ssalarn]

I did a little digging as well. Here is what I cam up with (I did find and note stunning finale, but you've already mentioned that).

Colour spray, Scintillating pattern, Stunning Barrier, Symbol of Stunning, Power Word: Stun, Waves of Ecstasy, Word of Chaos, = no damage, but doesn’t involve a fort save (either will save or no save).

Kai shout, Shout, Resonating Word, Sound Burst, Daze spell, = fort save, but also deals damage.

Massive damage system shock, Phantasmal killer = Fortitude save to avoid shock, but all involve taking damage. They also all kill you however.

So, that vs. the two. From this we can establish that in all likelihood, fort save stunning with no damage is an exception to the rules. There could be more exception we didn't fiend, but in there absence this is the likely conclusion.

So, you then need to ask yourself, what would you prefer?
Having another options that breaks a loosely established formula?
Add a small amount of damage to SI?

Is one answer more right than the other? Hell no, unless RAW is a particular consideration and you would like to avoid even small tweaks to it.

So, if we carve out all the no saves (several of which we already established actually support the physical side of things, not the mental side of things), and the fact that you claimed spells which do deal damage don't (like daze, which also is limited by physical health i.e. hit die and doesn't cause the stunned condition anyways), we'll see that your argument actually has very little backing it beyond poor research practices and false suppositions, and many of the things you tried to say support your vision of how things should work actually indicate the opposite.

So, yeah, one answer is more right than the other. Mine is literally the RAW of the Paizo staff who currently own and design the game, yours is a house-rule by a guy who claimed he researched something and still didn't know how it worked. That comes off a little mean, and I don't mean it to, but I literally don't know a nicer way of saying it.

[Boci]

So, if we carve out all the no saves (several of which we already established actually support the physical side of things, not the mental side of things),

Why? That still supports the trend that damageless stun is not a fort save thing.

and the fact that you claimed spells which do deal damage don't (like daze,

I meant the MM feat, which requires the spell to deal damage. I mean to delete it though because it daze, not stun.

which also is limited by physical health i.e. hit die),

How is that relevant? I meant to delete it because it dazes, it doesn't stun, but if we are includingit it deals no damage and has a will save, so falls into the formula I pointed out.

we'll see that your argument actually has very little backing it beyond poor research practices and false suppositions, and many of the things you tried to say support your vision of how things should work actually indicate the opposite.

Or your attempts to dismiss my argument is very weak.

So, yeah, one answer is more right than the other. Mine is literally the RAW of the Paizo staff who currently own and design the game, yours is a house-rule by a guy who claimed he researched something and still didn't know how it worked. That comes off a little mean, and I don't mean it to, but I literally don't know a nicer way of saying it.

Yo arrogantly dismiss the opinion of someone who disagrees with you for questionable objections to their logic and fall back on an appeal to authority by implying Paizo's ownership of the IP somehow exempts them from the small mistakes, like the one I believe they made in the mechanics of this feat. I'm starting to wonder if you truely think your answer is better, or if you are just desperate to get me, and anyone who agreed I had a point, to admit I'm wrong for some unknown and pointless reasons.

[Ssalarn]

Nope, just pointing out that your arguments are full of holes. And I wasn't appealing to authority. You said "Is one answer more right than the other? Hell no, unless RAW is a particular consideration", to which my response was that when talking about mechanics RAW certainly should be a consideration, especially when you're making illogical and unnecessary tweaks that result in muddled mechanics and peddling them as equivalent to the work of professional game designers.

{{scrubbed}}

[Red Fel]

... So, does this mean we're not making "Stunning Eructation" next?

[Boci]

But whatever. You are clearly determined to dominate the thread with defensive attacks and one-upsmanship.

Sure, that statement above applies to me with my "Here's my opinion, but you're not wrong if you disagree" and not you with you "You are wrong, here is why. Sorry if this insults you, but I cannot possibly avoid that". Hi pot, I'm kettle.

I can agree however that it is best we stop this, whilst debating opinions can be productive (its what made me realize what precisely about this feat I disliked), there is far too much bile between us for it being worthy on continuation.

... So, does this mean we're not making "Stunning Eructation" next?

Stunning Eructation
Preq: Base fort save: +2

Benefit: As a move equivalent action you can unleash a powerful eructation in a 30ft cone. All creatures caught in the area must succeed on a fortitude save or be nauseated for 1d4 rounds. If your last meal was particularly foul, this saving throw is made at a -4 penalty. You can use this ability at will, but if you use it a second time in the same encounter the range of the con drops to 15ft, any meal bonuses are lost and effected creatures get a +4 bonus to their save, as you now lack the element of surprise.

[Psyren]

{{scrubbed the post}}

*applauds*

I believe I shall join you. Let's go weave some veils.

[Shinken]

{Scrubbed}

[Red Fel]

Stunning Eructation
Preq: Base fort save: +2

Benefit: As a move equivalent action you can unleash a powerful eructation in a 30ft cone. All creatures caught in the area must succeed on a fortitude save or be nauseated for 1d4 rounds. If your last meal was particularly foul, this saving throw is made at a -4 penalty. You can use this ability at will, but if you use it a second time in the same encounter the range of the con drops to 15ft, any meal bonuses are lost and effected creatures get a +4 bonus to their save, as you now lack the element of surprise.

You are a magical person, and I like you.

[Boci]

You are a magical person, and I like you.

Thank you. See everyone, I can be fun if I choose to be. Now just to prove how limited that aspect of my being is...I deigned that feat really badly. Giving PCs, or NPCs, a chance to debuff instead of moving will turn a lot of fights into static exchanges, so it should be avoided. On the other hand, I think you should be able to belch and attack in the same round. It should probably become a standard action for subsequent uses, in addition to the other reductions. Maybe also add in a 1d4 round cool down. Alternatively leave it as is, but add that it can only be used after a hearty, rich meal. Either way should be fine.