Ask the Sage: Quick Rules Questions volume 6 - DnD 3.5 and Pathfinder)

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Admin Dirk

Pathfinder, Witch's Hex:



Since this hex acts like the cure light wounds spell, a witch can use it to touch attack and harm undead, correct?

Yes

Originally Posted by Admin Dirk

My question:
Can a witch use this hex over and over again on an undead? Ie, can they continue to make touch attacks and deliver a healing hex multiple times to the same undead?


My rules lawyer statement:

The hex states that a creature than benefits from the hex cannot receive it again.
Undead don't benefit from it, therefore... the hex can be cast again and again, like all other hexes that do not contain a set limit.

I'm going with no. First, because it is a pretty picayune reading of the hex, the same as if a GM ruled you couldn't use it to harm undead because you aren't using it to soothe them.

More importantly, however, is that it would cause the Healing hex to work in a completely different manner than every similar hex the witch has, which is generally a good indication something is amiss.

Ultimately though, it's up to the GM for their game.

[Birched]

I would argue the undead "benefits" negatively from it, the way you can "gain" -1 levels...

+1 points to Brian for using the word "picayune"!

[Admin Dirk]

Rules lawyer:

The wording on "sooth" is flavor text/fluff text, and is never considered part of the actual rules of the game.

As for the argument that "it would cause the Healing hex to work in a completely different manner than every similar hex the witch has..." I feel you have a decent point in response there. And, I think that's how the designers thought about it, and intended it to be. RAI, even if they didn't write it out specifically.

there are several hexes that do not have 1/day limits, there are several that do... as well as hexes that are completely dissimilar to most others in how they work. But yes, many do have a 1/day limit.

@birched: at negatively benefit. You could be an HR manager with that kind of thinking.

[jj_wolven]

I lean toward 1/day for all aspects.
If it worked differently, it would have been spelled out. In this case I would say "benefits" = "affects". I think flavor-ish text just slipped in there.

Originally Posted by Birched

I would argue the undead "benefits" negatively from it, the way you can "gain" -1 levels...

+1 points to Brian for using the word "picayune"!

Negatively?
It benefits they by returning them away from evil.

-me

[Admin Dirk]

Originally Posted by jj_wolven

Negatively?
It benefits them by returning them away from evil.

-me

You can't not go home again.

[jj_wolven]

I'm aware that there is no hope for me, but there is for some others. Like undead, devils, cthulhu...


-me

[Admin Dirk]

Do hexes, in Pathfinder, require Line of Sight? Line of Effect?

One, the other, neither, both?


Show your work.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Admin Dirk

Do hexes, in Pathfinder, require Line of Sight? Line of Effect?

One, the other, neither, both?


Show your work.

Kind of a dead horse topic, this has been argued for years over on Paizo forums with no clear answer. It comes down to (as it usually does) poorly written wording.

The Merits of Pro LOS/LOE: Supernatural abilities are covered under the magic rules, and has a list of ways in which they are different from spells; these differences do not change the rules of targeting as underlined for spells.

The Merits of Anti LOS/LOE: Supernatural abilities say they aren't spells, and targeting rules spedifically uses the word 'spell'

The only thing left is a table by table adjudication. For me, if the Hex has a target, the character will need LOS/LOE. The Scar hex, if cast with LOS/LOE at the time, provides an exception to the rule for so long as it persists.

[Admin Dirk]

I admit, I find hexes to be fascinating... because you don't DO anything, they just happen.

You walk into a room, stand in the corner, and then stuff just... happens. People drop things, go to sleep, get entombed in ice, etc.. You never say a word, never raise a finger, never make a motion. You don't even need to look at your victim. You just look at the buffet table, grab a couple veggies for your plate, and stuff happens.

Yeah, there's a hex you need to say something, and one or two you need to touch the person, but in general, there's no verbal components, no gestures, no nothing. Just sit there, file your nails, and hex...

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Admin Dirk

I admit, I find hexes to be fascinating... because you don't DO anything, they just happen.

You walk into a room, stand in the corner, and then stuff just... happens. People drop things, go to sleep, get entombed in ice, etc.. You never say a word, never raise a finger, never make a motion. You don't even need to look at your victim. You just look at the buffet table, grab a couple veggies for your plate, and stuff happens.

Yeah, there's a hex you need to say something, and one or two you need to touch the person, but in general, there's no verbal components, no gestures, no nothing. Just sit there, file your nails, and hex...

As written, yeah. I think the most enjoyable witch I've seen played did all their hexes as elaborate pronounced curses, which is what the idea of hexes originally seemed to be, and then they went and added just odd stuff like beneficial and utility hexes

Witch is one of the best examples of Paizo doing this thing where they set something up with a lot of potential and then just leave it feeling bland and unfinished. Patrons, familiars as conduits, hexes... these were all set up to be core aspects of the witch with a lot of flavor and character... and then it was like they just abandoned the idea after making a vague list.

[Admin Dirk]

I think of them as a Tier 1 or so Warlock...

A few spells they can cast at will, spam all day long (warlock), with a bit of wizard spellcasting too (Tier 1-ish). Like if you took a warlock, and added Bard spell progression or something.

But, I guess a warlock is an all day long sorcerer, so... who knows.

They are cool, though.

[RasterFarian]

I have a question about he Fly spell (Pathfinder). If my character tried to carry more weight than maximum load (say another party member) and stepped off a high place would the spell fail completely or would it allow for a slower fall like when the spell ends in mid-flight?

Relevant descriptors:

"The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears."
"Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds etc.."

[jj_wolven]

RAW you would fall.

Most GMs I know would allow a gentle float down.

-me

[RasterFarian]

Thanks! That’s how I’d do it, but wanted to get an opinion or two. Actually I’d be interested in a basic formula that gives a descent rate or damage(if any) per pound over max load. Like if I were trying to save a 1-2 party members, they could cling to me, I cast fly and step off. Hmm, it also begs the question of acceleration which is the basis for 1d6/10ft. If the spell keeps rate constant, but still falls at a high enough rate to do damage….etc..