FAQ Attack!

wraithstrike wrote:

Someone does not know the difference between complaints and trying to help Paizo write things so they are easier to interpret.

There are a number of people in this thread that don't know that difference, and some think they're helping.

Good point, but what I am saying is that trying to help, and complaining are not the same thing and while I should not have allowed myself into being baited into that comment the point still stands. Hopefully the mods delete their post and mine. 4 months without a snarky comment, and I go and fail a will save.

edit:actually I will delete that post on my own.

We're not going to change how the channeled energy rules work and we're certainly not going to change it back to how it was in the Beta.

But you could.

they ever settle if paladins with NEA can heal themselves with LoH?

The devs say that the intent of LoH was that it was positive energy so RAI they can not heal themselves.

4 months without a snarky comment, and I go and fail a will save.

Technicially that makes you eligible for sainthood. Someone needs to contact the Vatican.

I wasn't aware that any of the addressed issues were areas of major dispute and as such, don't see this as a particularly useful FAQ or Blog.

It would have been better to tackle much larger, well known issues such as grapple, pounce, simulacrum, and reincarnate.

Grapple is fine. :)

Serious reply:

I thought pounce was cleared up in a post a while back.

Simulacrum is so dependent on the creature that they can give suggestions, but it is almost impossible to get a direct ruling in.

What is wrong with reincarnate?

Grapple is fine. :)

Serious reply:

I thought pounce was cleared up in a post a while back.

Simulacrum is so dependent on the creature that they can give suggestions, but it is almost impossible to get a direct ruling in.

What is wrong with reincarnate?

In all instances, they are so vague as to be nearly unplayable without house ruling somewhere.

I agree with Simulacrum requiring GM fiat, more than I like, but they would have to do an entire rewrite to fix it.

I just remembered the issue of whether or not pounce intends to allow you to get a full attack if you only have a standard action to use.

Reincarnate is pretty easy unless you go to another plane or you are not a humanoid, but that was intentionally left to a GM. I doubt there is a way to cover every special situation for that one.

Enough derailing though....

Reincarnate is pretty easy unless you go to another plane or you are not a humanoid, but that was intentionally left to a GM. I doubt there is a way to cover every special situation for that one.

Ah, but with the additional playable races (catfolk or tengu, anyone?), the reincarnation table is a tad... dusty.

Jiggy wrote:

Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

I don't think simplicity will work here.

This version means all those unexpected affects froms spells are back, and Positive and Negative Energy effects is not specific.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you think the NEA abiity needs to list out every spell and effect that it interacts with, just because there are spells which are unclear as to whether or not they use pos/neg energy.

If so, that won't work, for two reasons:
1) If the nature of pos/neg energy is unclear, that needs to be fixed elsewhere, not in the definition of NEA.

2) Sean already said that whatever the new wording was, it would need to fit in just a couple of lines. Listing out examples would not comply with that requirement.

So again, with this wording:
Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

No, it doesn't define whether Effect X uses pos/neg energy, but it was never supposed to. But once you've determined (by whatever means) that a given effect does use pos/neg energy, does the above wording sufficiently instruct you on how the ability interacts with that effect? That's all the ability description needs to do.

Not every ability, no, but the point of the FAQ was that they wanted certain spells like Searing Light, to affect creatures with NEA as if Undead. They already had a re-edit that was similar to this, and it didn't work right because it open the door to many other issues. Yours specifies only Positive/Negative Energy, so it cuts out some issues, except there is no list of wat spells use Positive/Negative Energy. For Example, Searing Light, a spell that was specifically called out as wanting to work, doesn't specify it used Positive Energy.

I'm trying to help you, by the way. I don't think removing things from the definitio will work, because that's just going to add more poosibilities for things not expected.

Not every ability, no, but the point of the FAQ was that they wanted certain spells like Searing Light, to affect creatures with NEA as if Undead. They already had a re-edit that was similar to this, and it didn't work right because it open the door to many other issues. Yours specifies only Positive/Negative Energy, so it cuts out some issues, except there is no list of wat spells use Positive/Negative Energy. For Example, Searing Light, a spell that was specifically called out as wanting to work, doesn't specify it used Positive Energy.

I think you might have missed (due to being ninja'd by) SKR's latest proposed wording.

He went back to specifically referencing pos/neg energy, and it has been with that in mind that I've been trying out various wordings. Basically, I've been trying to streamline the wording of what SKR was last known to intend.

I think you and I are working toward different goals - I'm operating based on SKR's most recent proposition, while you seem to be operating based on previous iterations, so you and I aren't even on the same page. :)

So read the post I linked in case you haven't already, as he scales back his goals to mostly just "X needs to happen in situation Y, here's some wording to get there". He seems to have abandoned some of his earlier inclusions.

Once you've read that, give me some fresh feedback. :)

I was going off of what SKR told me was his intended goal with the FAQ for NEA. The last repost was taking back what was changed originally because it opened up too much unexpected stuff.

Actually I was going off of what SKR specifically told me was his intended goal with the FAQ for NEA. The last repost was taking back what was changed originally because it opened up too much unexpected stuff.

I still think we're not on the same page (did you read what I linked?).

1. The blog post phrased it without mentioning pos/neg energy.

2. SKR posted that this was done to include more effects than just pos/neg energy. (This seems to be where you're at.)

3. SKR makes a post saying basically, "nevermind those extra effects, let's change NEA back to just flipping the heal/harm effects of pos/neg energy". He has at this point changed goals. You seem to still be back at #2.

4. SKR makes another post, this time suggesting new wording which specifically references pos/neg energy and does NOT attempt to include other effects, further reinforcing his change of goals.

5. You then reply to his suggested wording, but apparently missed his statement of changed goals and therefore asked if he was still wanting to include the effects that he stated in #3 that he was no longer trying to include.

6. SKR then replies directly to you, stating that keeping the extra effects would be "interesting", but states that he is choosing to go the simpler route that only uses pos/neg energy.

7. SKR then posts again, reaffirming the "pos/neg energy ONLY" stance to another poster.

8. SKR posts yet again, proposing another wording that stays in line with his stated goal of keeping a simpler ability that only interacts with healing/harming via pos/neg energy.

That was the last time SKR posted in this thread (unless he's now ninja'd me on this post). So unless he PM'd you sometime after #8 saying that he was changing his mind aaalllll the way back to #2, then the current goal is a simple form of NEA that only interacts with positive and negative energy.

You're stuck way back on #2, but we really need to be focusing on the goal set forth/affirmed in every single one of Sean's five posts since then.

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just saying that in order to be helpful, we all need to be working toward the same goal. You appear to be stuck, and are therefore working toward a goal that has already been abandoned.

wraithstrike wrote:

Reincarnate is pretty easy unless you go to another plane or you are not a humanoid, but that was intentionally left to a GM. I doubt there is a way to cover every special situation for that one.

Ah, but with the additional playable races (catfolk or tengu, anyone?), the reincarnation table is a tad... dusty.

They are still humanoid, unless you are saying they are not an option to be reincarnated as according to the spell's current version, but I don't think updating the core spell should be done. The GM may not like such creatures nor have access to the books. If he does like them changing the percentages to make room for them is not something he needs a developer to do.

Well,
I did my part on the FAQ with the original NEA thread to led to it hitting the FAQ.

But if someone else wants to start a thread about Reincarnate, to get it FAQ'd as well, I'll be happy to click the FAQ on it. A little clarification couldn't hurt. Note not rewriting the spell, just clarification on what does/doesn't get changed when you reincarnate.

Beckett wrote:

Actually I was going off of what SKR specifically told me was his intended goal with the FAQ for NEA. The last repost was taking back what was changed originally because it opened up too much unexpected stuff.

I edited that post because it implied something I didn't mean it to.

Anyway, yes I've read the entire thing (both threads) and no I still think your example is still to simple (or rather that because you are making it general, it still has all the same problems). We are not on a different page, but rather it seems your trying to focus on the one aspect only, and I'm disagreeing with you.

I don't care about credit, mind you, so I'm not trying to bump you out of the spotlight.

I think Sean is trying to limit it to effects that mention positive or negative energy, and not those that just imply it. In those cases I don't see how any confusion can come up.

I removed a post that was very condescending to the Paizo community.

Midnight_Angel wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Reincarnate is pretty easy unless you go to another plane or you are not a humanoid, but that was intentionally left to a GM. I doubt there is a way to cover every special situation for that one.

Ah, but with the additional playable races (catfolk or tengu, anyone?), the reincarnation table is a tad... dusty.

They are still humanoid, unless you are saying they are not an option to be reincarnated as according to the spell's current version, but I don't think updating the core spell should be done. The GM may not like such creatures nor have access to the books. If he does like them changing the percentages to make room for them is not something he needs a developer to do.

I've long house ruled a custom table that added entries for "character's previous race" and "caster's race".

I've read the entire thing (both threads) and no I still think your example is still to simple (or rather that because you are making it general, it still has all the same problems). We are not on a different page, but rather it seems your trying to focus on the one aspect only, and I'm disagreeing with you.

Sean's most recent wording idea:

My most recent wording idea:
Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

What, in your understanding, is the relevant difference between these two?

1. They both acknowledge that the creature is technically alive (therefore no "undead traits", don't have the "undead" type, etc).
2. They both cause the creature to fall into the "undead" camp for effects which use pos/neg energy (both for targeting purposes and for final effect).
3. They both fail to interact with any effect that does NOT utilize pos/neg energy.

The only real difference is that mine avoids using the word "target" (which was a concern Sean mentioned when he posted his); and starts off with the phrase "despite being alive" instead of "the creature is alive", which I did on purpose to emphasize that the "undead treatment" was an exception clause which replaced its "aliveness" in a way that includes targeting/exclusion (ala Channel Energy) in a way that doesn't leave people splitting hairs about whether or not Channel Energy "targets".

So how would you compare and contrast the two, and what changes would you recommend within the space limitations?

A PSA on the simulacrum spell would be nice.

Sean's most recent wording idea:
The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, and targeted by these effects as if it were an undead creature.

My most recent wording idea:
Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

What, in your understanding, is the relevant difference between these two?

It's mostly minor things. #1 specifies that it only relates to being healed or taking damage fron P&N Energy, while yours is open to other possibilities, like Command Undead/Chill Touch, DeathWatch, and things that do use Positive and Negative Energy, but not for either healing or damage.

The issue is, that Positive and Negative Energy is not really defined clearly. So trying to make a simple definition that is based off of that doens't work. Not because the simple definition of NEA, but because it's based on something else that isn't clearly defined, and is not clear to everyone.

So how would you compare and contrast the two, and what changes would you recommend within the space limitations?

Perhaps include that the creature "is affected by" positive and negative energy "as if they where Undead rather than a living creature".

To be honest, I'm thinking that the original version is probably the best so far, with the FAQ answering the major issue it had with Channel Energy being clarified.

#1 specifies that it only relates to being healed or taking damage fron P&N Energy, while yours is open to other possibilities, like Command Undead/Chill Touch, DeathWatch, and things that do use Positive and Negative Energy, but not for either healing or damage.

In that case, try this one on for size:

Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects that inflict or heal damage.

This should have the same functionality as SKR's last post, without room for people to get hung up on "target" stuff.

Thoughts?

I'd drop the Despite being Alive

NEA:The creature is treated as if they where Undead when being affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

I actually prefere something like this:

NEA:The creature is treated as if they where Undead rather than a living creature, when being affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities. Note: This Qualitiy is lost the the creature is no longer alive.

As it is more clear, but has a similar issue. Should fit into a 2-3 line area.

Both of them read the same to me. At some point we have to just ask the question "Is it clear enough for the average person to understand?"

I'd drop the Despite being Alive (may not actually be alive

I think if there were a chance of a not-alive creature having NEA, then Sean wouldn't have begun every single iteration of the ability with "the creature is alive". ;)

NEA:The creature is treated as if they where Undead when being affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage.

I actually prefere something like this:

NEA:The creature is treated as if they where Undead rather than a living creature, when being affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage.

As it is more clear, but has a similar issue.

"Rather than a living creature" and "despite being alive" accomplish the same effect, grammatically speaking; they both force "undeadness" to be applied instead of "livingness". So the clause you're advocating is already in the version I proposed.

Additionally, your wording uses the clause "when being affected by", which takes us right back to targeting issues: if I channel to affect undead, then the dhampir fails to pass the "when being affected" checkpoint, and NEA doesn't apply (he's unaffected). This is not how SKR said he wanted it.

"Treated as undead for purposes of" solves this by not implying that he has to be affected first in order to cause NEA to kick in.

Both of them read the same to me. At some point we have to just ask the question "Is it clear enough for the average person to understand?"

Unfortunately, it's impolite to tell someone that their confusion does not interfere with the answer to that question being "yes". ;)

...And now I'm tempted to homebrew up a construct that has negative energy affinity.

Beckett wrote:

I'd drop the Despite being Alive (may not actually be alive

I think if there were a chance of a not-alive creature having NEA, then Sean wouldn't have begun every single iteration of the ability with "the creature is alive". ;)

A Dhampir that becomes an actual Undead.

Anyway I edited slightly explained it better.

"Even if alive..."?

Good catch Beckett.

Then what about--->"The creature is affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage, as if they where Undead."

Good catch Beckett.

Then what about--->"The creature is affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage, as if they where Undead."

Putting the "as if undead" at the end of the sentence makes it clunky (it also shouldn't have a comma there). Slight tweak:

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

I really think that "for purposes of" is a key phrase; it includes all methods of interaction (effect, targeting, inclusion in an AoE or aura, etc) while still specifying that the subject does not gain all qualities of undead - only the one described.

I like the "inflict" better than "deal".
I can accept your edit. :)

Good catch Beckett.

Then what about--->"The creature is affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage, as if they where Undead."

I like it.

I actually took away "inflict" and replaced it with "deal" so as not to imply Inflict _____ Wounds spells only. I also wanted to avoid Cure, Harm, Remove, or Cause for the same reasons. I couldn't really think of a better word than heal, though.

concerro wrote:

Good catch Beckett.

Then what about--->"The creature is affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage, as if they where Undead."

I like it.

I actually took away "inflict" and replaced it with "deal" so as not to imply Inflict _____ Wounds spells only. I also wanted to avoid Cure, Harm, Remove, or Cause for the same reasons. I couldn't really think of a better word than heal, though.

Spell names (even partial ones, I believe) are always italicized in rules text, and a reference to one will include either the entire spell name (not present in NEA) or at least the word "spell" (also not present).

We don't need to avoid using words which are two or three steps away from actually implying what some people might somehow construe them to imply.

I agree. Inflict is not a game term, and if they take it that far....well I think the point has been made.

PS:Ignoring my incorrect spelling of were, and the misplaced comma either version works. I think Jiggy's flows better, but at the end of the day both should be usable.

Please note, all you people trading definitions back and forth, that none of them solve the reason for the original FAQ. That is, how they are targeted, whether as living or dead when a channel effect occurs.

In other words, all these wonderful definitions get us back to the original issue, which is when the cleric uses Channel, is the NEA creature treated as alive (as in he can only be affected when the channel is chosen to affect living creatures) or is it treated as undead for that as well (as in, he can only be affected when the channel is chosen to affect undead creatures).

It's not a game term, but I didn't want to draw a connection between inflicting negative energy and Inflict Light Wounds, for example, in the sense of "this only applies to Inflict spells <ie "all spells with Inflict in their name">", which Clerics spontaniously channel.

MDT how can the last two submissions be misread as anything other than treating the creature as an undead?

Please note, all you people trading definitions back and forth, that none of them solve the reason for the original FAQ. That is, how they are targeted, whether as living or dead when a channel effect occurs.

In other words, all these wonderful definitions get us back to the original issue, which is when the cleric uses Channel, is the NEA creature treated as alive (as in he can only be affected when the channel is chosen to affect living creatures) or is it treated as undead for that as well (as in, he can only be affected when the channel is chosen to affect undead creatures).

Addressed:

I really think that "for purposes of" is a key phrase; it includes all methods of interaction (effect, targeting, inclusion in an AoE or aura, etc) while still specifying that the subject does not gain all qualities of undead - only the one described.

I think it's reasonably clear that "for the purposes of" includes targeting/AoE inclusion. After all, if you exclude the dhampir from the undead-affecting channel, then you're not really treating him as undead for the purposes of that channel, are you?

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

This wording is inclusive of targeting/AoE issues. Compare "is affected by X as though it were undead", which leaves the reader unsure if the creature's affected/unaffected "status" comes before or after the NEA kicks in. The above wording does not leave that wiggle room. To target/exclude/include the creature as a living creature would be failing to treat it as undead for the purposes of that effect.

Actually, that was specifically whay I kept saying "rather than a living creature".

Jiggy seems to have missed a lot of the issues and points here.

It's unclear because it doesn't change anything from the original. The original said they reacted as if undead. The new says basically the same thing. It doesn't talk about whether they are considered alive or undead for purposes of targeting of channel. SKR's last stab does cover that, explicitly. Here, let me show you...

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

That's all great, any time he's effected by positive or negative energy, he's considered undead. However, if he's not effected in the first place, then he's not effected. Channel says you have to choose to channel against living, or undead, not both. If you channel vs undead, the NEA creature is not effected because he's not undead. Nothing in the quote above says they're a valid target when targeting undead, it says they're treated as undead for the effect. If the effect never occurs, then the reversal of the effect never occurs.

If you want to handle this, you say...

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage, as well as when deciding what group they fall into for targeting of channels.

Jiggy seems to have missed a lot of the issues and points here.

Either that, or I've failed to communicate other people's misunderstandings of how English grammar works. ;)

Mdt, no offense, but you're simply wrong. The line you added is redundant.

It's not that I don't get what your point is or don't understand what issue you think is unaddressed. It's that what you think is unaddressed actually IS addressed already.

No offense Jiggy, but you are wrong. If your wording addressed it, then I wouldn't be pointing out it doesn't. Saying that they are treated as undead for effects (which by the way, is a specific game term) is not the same as saying they are the treated as undead for targeting.

Jiggy wrote:

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

That's all great, any time he's effected by positive or negative energy, he's considered undead. However, if he's not effected in the first place, then he's not effected. Channel says you have to choose to channel against living, or undead, not both. If you channel vs undead, the NEA creature is not effected because he's not undead. Nothing in the quote above says they're a valid target when targeting undead, it says they're treated as undead for the effect. If the effect never occurs, then the reversal of the effect never occurs.

The above is very clear to me. It does not say "when he is affected he is treated as though he is undead". It is saying for all effects that heal damage of inflict damage upon undead creature X is affected as if it is also undead.

For your interpretation to be valid it would have to read "The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that affect it if the effect uses positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage"

My wording of your interpretation calls for the creature to be affected before it can be affected.

Jiggy's revision of my statement just says that the creature is counted as an undead for effects that inflict or heal damage if they use positive or negative energy to do so.

I see no resemblance between Jiggy's edit and what I bolded in my second paragraph.