General Discussion

[Maidhc O Casain]

I'm good with inventory either on the wiki or where it is. Here, judges have some control over what's added or taken out, but we've got to monitor it. On the wiki, when a player buys something from "stock" they're able to immediately delete it from inventory, but they're on the honor system to do so (and not to add things for which they want to avoid rolling). As I said, I'm good either way.

 

[DalkonCledwin]

I'm good with inventory either on the wiki or where it is. Here, judges have some control over what's added or taken out, but we've got to monitor it. On the wiki, when a player buys something from "stock" they're able to immediately delete it from inventory, but they're on the honor system to do so (and not to add things they want to avoid rolling for them). As I said, I'm good either way.

there is also the issue of unknown third parties who are neither players or judges coming in and making alterations to the wiki (regardless of what page it is) without prior consent of the judges or players who are responsible for those pages. I mean sure, the wiki tracks all changes, but broad sweeping changes could be problematic to pin down exactly.

 

[IronWolf]

I think moving the inventory to the wiki would be a good idea. As for the rest, I'm not terribly concerned if the inventory is not 100% accurate or if someone buys an item that is technically not there. It just happens to be new inventory and we continue on.

I think moving it to the wiki could be an interesting experiment. A person can be emailed when the pages change too, right? So a couple of the judges could monitor the emails to spot flagrant abuses without consuming a large amount of time.

I also agree that it really isn't a major concern if the inventory drifts here or there. The shopkeep might be disorganized, they might have obtained the item in another way, etc, etc.

 

[HolyMan]

A good idea Mowgli - I think we have enough good people in the LPF to use the honor system and not have it bite us in the bud.

And having it being followed by the judges means they'll be able to follow the page and emailed there were changes and see if they match up with the posts from the Mystic Pearl thread.

DC - I haven't heard of any tapering with character sheets or other open content on the wiki so I would hope that track record would keep.

Please let everyone know when the page is up - it might need linked to page one of the Pearl thread.

HM

 

[Systole]

I wanted to get a ruling on a poorly worded feat, because it affects Daylily's feat progression as of next level.

Furious Finish
Prerequisite: Rage class feature, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While raging, when you use the Vital Strike feat, you can choose not to roll your damage dice and instead deal damage equal to the maximum roll possible on those damage dice. If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).
​

There's a debate going on (and no errata anywhere in sight) as to whether this overrides fatigue immunity, or whether this was intended to only override the 17th level barbarian ability Tireless Rage. The best discussion I can find about it is here. My personal take on it is the same as Stabbitydoom's:

Okay, seriously, immunity to X is immunity unless something calls out specifically that they bypass immunity*. It's obvious that the intent is that even if you have Tireless Rage you're still fatigued. (Word count and the desire to avoid loopholes for tireless-rage-like abilities probably got in the way of being more clear).

Immunity is meant to be very very powerful. If it is meant to be overridden, it will be explicitly stated as such. In the context of the ability, the phrase "even if they would not normally be" is an obvious reference to tireless rage, not a reference to immunity.

*The absolutely only case I can think of for this being done is the fact that you can critical and sneak attack incorporeal creatures if and only if you use a ghost touch weapon, and this is stated along with their immunity rather than being a separate rule.

I would like to get other judges' opinions on this. I will recuse myself from voting as it affects one of my characters.

 

[Qik]

Hmm, sticky situation.

After doing a bit of reading around, my personal opinion is that the fatigue caused by the feat was meant to override immunity to fatigue. I interpret the generalness of "even if you would normally not be" as referring to all possible ways to avoid fatigue, and not just Tireless Rage specifically. I feel that the latter interpretation entails a leap in logic that is not suggested in the feat specifically, or in rules interpretations generally.

That said, I will be the first to admit that I find the idea of this feat overriding immunity of fatigue to be a bit of a stretch: if someone is immune to fatigue, I would assume that the intense effort of a powerful blow would fall under the umbrella of that immunity, and thus be circumvented. I'm not always for such a "realistic" interpretation of the rules, but in this case, I think they're applicable.

It's worth considering how rife this feat would be for abuse. I haven't really crunched the numbers, but the thread certainly suggests some possible routes wherein letting the fatigue condition be avoided via immunity could lead to some overpowered effects. That to me is part of the evidence for the intent of the feat's wording to trump an immunity to fatigue (as Cheapy said, the specific usually overrides the general, and in this case, the feat is definitely the specific to immunity's general).

All that said, I can see it going either way, for sure; it's just that my first thought is that this feat was meant to trump even immunity. Although I will admit that Vital Strikers get crapped on too much as it is.

As an aside: personally, I think you're as entitled to a vote as any of the rest of us. I trust you enough to make an objective call. That's your "job" as a judge, after all.

 

[Satin Knights]

Trap feat! Taking Daylily as the example...

A) With two strikes, Daylily averages 20 + 20 in damage. Normal Vital Strike is an average of 27 damage. Maxed Vital Strike is 37 damage. So, it is a gain over the normal vital strike of 10 damage. But it is still not as good as if he can take two swings.

B) Rage ends. Daylily drops 15 HP. In a toe to toe, trading damage, the 10 damage you gained against the opponent is offset by 15 HP that you dropped yourself on the first round. The second round, you are +20 damage vs the 15 offset. Do fights get to third rounds with barbarians? As Daylily goes up in levels, that drop in HP is an additional 3 per level. It is, in my opinion, better to maintain the rage.

C) When the rage is off, an AoO is a normal or fatigued attack causing you -2 to hit and -3 damage.

D) The feat only applies to Vital Strike. Not Improved Vital Strike or Greater Vital Strike. The Improved and Greater versions do not "add to the base feat" but specify from ground up the feat's ability. As soon as you can take Improved Vital Strike, the 10 bonus damage drops to 3 bonus compared to using IVS straight and maintaining rage. Verses the Greater Vital Strike, GVS is ahead by 4 instead. That makes the feat pointless to use once you have GVS.

So, it is a short term feat that loses effectiveness if you continue up the feat chain where it doesn't apply.

The answers you wanted, which are my opinions:
* If you have Tireless Rage, Yes, you are still fatigued.
* Human's Heart of the Fields would allow you to ignore the fatigued condition causing effect once per day.
* No, you are not fatigued if you have immunity to fatigue from a lame oracle. The feat does not say if overrides immunity. As far as I know, nothing without an "Epic" rating overrides an immunity. A BAB=+6 feat does not qualify as epic.

But it is still a short sighted feat. D) makes it pointless to take if the campaign is going into the higher levels. In PFS, where you retire at 12th, it has its uses.

 

[GlassEye]

I'm of the opinion it does not override immunity to fatigue.

 

[Systole]

My opinion on the overpoweredness of it is: Not really. Furious Finish is not as good as multiple attacks from the get-go, even with an earthbreaker. At 9th level, Daylily should be putting out 31 damage per swing (twice per full attack). A Furious Finish will bump that to 48, once. This immediately gets in later levels. It's useful only in the situational case where you have to move and swing -- which is often enough where I thought it might be worth taking.

As for mechanics, the wording on the feat and the fact that it doesn't call out immunity specifically suggests to me that it was meant to apply to Tireless Rage, and that fatigue immunity still applies.

Anyway, SK has convinced me that it is indeed a trap feat, making this conversation moot, at least for the time being. I generally don't think into double-digit levels, especially not with barbarians, who are the gerbils of 3.x/PF.

 

[Artur Hawkwing]

I generally don't think into double-digit levels, especially not with barbarians, who are the gerbils of 3.x/PF.

Has mental vision of Daylily on a wheel, running in place as fast as possible while munching on an oversized nugget of gerbil food. Laughs so hard he chokes himself unconscious on french fries.