FAQ Attack!

Now this is a blog! Thank you thank you thank you! I would love to see this become a regular feature. Love it! Thank you! Did I say thank you yet? I only ask because I know there will be a storm of posters wishing you had addressed other questions.

But from this one poster...thanks for now!

I remember the first and last debates. Good job on clearing those up.

I like these answers they just make sense.

Nifty. Thanks. Although I do wonder how frequently the bloodline question was asked :)

That negative energy affinity is a bit broader than I understood it - theoretically, all spells, such as Command Undead and Sunbeam, would also effect negative energy affinity creatures as undead. To my mind this not only firmly makes the trait a penalty, but opens the potential for many more confusions with spells and effects down the road in unforeseen ways

That negative energy affinity is a bit broader than I understood it - theoretically, all spells, such as Command Undead and Sunbeam, would also effect negative energy affinity creatures as undead. To my mind this not only firmly makes the trait a penalty, but opens the potential for many more confusions with spells and effects down the road in unforeseen ways

Those wouldn't be applied here, because they don't apply to living creatures at all. This ability needs it to affect undead and humans, and to affect those two differently.

Although Chill Touch does work on them as if they were undead now, causing them to Panic instead of taking damage and str damage. On a failed save, of course.

Azazyll wrote:

That negative energy affinity is a bit broader than I understood it - theoretically, all spells, such as Command Undead and Sunbeam, would also effect negative energy affinity creatures as undead. To my mind this not only firmly makes the trait a penalty, but opens the potential for many more confusions with spells and effects down the road in unforeseen ways

Those wouldn't be applied here, because they don't apply to living creatures at all.

Sunbeam works on living creatures.

I agree with Azazyll -- the new wording is more expansive than the old wording and there will probably be unforeseen results.

I skipped over "and sunbeam" in that sentence. Yes, it's more expansive, but not Command Undead expansive.

I like the negative energy affinity change because before it was limited and ambiguous--obviously it was supposed to affect cures/inflicts and channel positive/negative, and presumably other effects that have that sort of flip (like heal/harm), but that's a really specific subset of the rules, and if that's all you wanted it to be limited to, you might as well say "you're living, but harmed by positive energy like an undead and healed by negative energy like an undead." I think it's more interesting if the undeadish-ness of these creatures comes up more often.

If this becomes a problem, we may revise the ability so it's limited even further to just effects that use positive or negative energy (which would rule out sunbeam, which is neither), but we'd like to see how this works for now.

I just wanna make sure Im getting these correctly.

Regarding Negative Energy: So a cleric who uses Channel Positive Energy in order to heal liviing creatures around him would harm a dhampir in that same Channel? If he Channeled Positive Energy to harm undead, it wouldnt do anything to a dhampir, because he is living, right?

Regarding touch spells: I understand the magus can cast a touch spell, move, and then make a melee (touch) attack, so my questions are:
A) He only does the weapon damage is the weaon hits the regular AC of the target, not the touch AC, right?
B) Can a Sorc/ Wiz that uses a melee touch spell (Shocking Grasp for example) cast the touch spell, move, and then make the touch attack attempt all in the same round as well?

I just wanna make sure Im getting these correctly.

Regarding Negative Energy: So a cleric who uses Channel Positive Energy in order to heal liviing creatures around him would harm a dhampir in that same Channel? If he Channeled Positive Energy to harm undead, it wouldnt do anything to a dhampir, because he is living, right?

I get the opposite: whatever you do, he ends up being treated as an undead (but only if it matters if he's undead or not).

So if you channel to harm undead, he gets harmed.

If you channel to heal undead, he gets healed.

If you channel to harm the living, he isn't affected (undead aren't affected).

If you channel to heal the living, he isn't affected (undead aren't affected).

godsDMit,

1) Yep. The ability calls out "instead of the free touch attack, you may make a melee attack". So, as written, it must hit regular AC. I can see arguments for and against how that's the intent though.
2) that's how it works currently

Great blog! Please make it a weekly installment!

So a non-Maguc can cast a touch spell, move, and then (free action) cast to deliever the touch spell?

<ninja'd by gDM>

So a non-Maguc can cast a touch spell, move, and then (free action) cast to deliever the touch spell?

<ninja'd by gDM>

Yes, it's in the Combat section of the core rules.

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

So a non-Maguc can cast a touch spell, move, and then (free action) cast to deliever the touch spell?

You're correct on everything except the last use of the word "cast". "Cast" and "deliver" are not the same thing.

So any old spellcaster can cast a touch spell, then take a move action, then deliver the already-cast spell via a melee touch attack as a free action, all in one round.

If you miss (or don't take your freebie attack), then further attempts with your held charge cost standard actions as normal.

godsDMit wrote:

I just wanna make sure Im getting these correctly.

Regarding Negative Energy: So a cleric who uses Channel Positive Energy in order to heal liviing creatures around him would harm a dhampir in that same Channel? If he Channeled Positive Energy to harm undead, it wouldnt do anything to a dhampir, because he is living, right?

I get the opposite: whatever you do, he ends up being treated as an undead (but only if it matters if he's undead or not).

So if you channel to harm undead, he gets harmed.

If you channel to heal undead, he gets healed.

If you channel to harm the living, he isn't affected (undead aren't affected).

If you channel to heal the living, he isn't affected (undead aren't affected).

This is how I read it also.

Wow, I never even noticed that. In 3E, you couldn't.

I just wanna make sure Im getting these correctly.

Regarding Negative Energy: So a cleric who uses Channel Positive Energy in order to heal liviing creatures around him would harm a dhampir in that same Channel? If he Channeled Positive Energy to harm undead, it wouldnt do anything to a dhampir, because he is living, right?

No. The intent of the target and the cleric doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the cleric is trying to heal the living or harm the undead--the dhampir is always treated as if it's actually undead. So if you have a cleric, his dahmpir buddy, and a ghoul, and the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead). If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).

Edit: In other words, hogarth is correct. :)

Beckett wrote:

So a non-Maguc can cast a touch spell, move, and then (free action) cast to deliever the touch spell?

You're correct on everything except the last use of the word "cast".

I meant to say deliver the cast touch spell. In 3E, it specified that the Free action delivery was part of the touch spell casting action, so you couldn't move after casting, but before touching the target unless you where "holding the charge". This makes me very happy.

Thank you. And please more! :)

Wow, I never even noticed that. In 3E, you couldn't.

The wording was the same in the 3.5 SRD. It's easy to overlook though, since it's in the Combat section of the rules, not the Magic section.

Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

godsDMit wrote:

I just wanna make sure Im getting these correctly.

Regarding Negative Energy: So a cleric who uses Channel Positive Energy in order to heal liviing creatures around him would harm a dhampir in that same Channel? If he Channeled Positive Energy to harm undead, it wouldnt do anything to a dhampir, because he is living, right?

No. The intent of the target and the cleric doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the cleric is trying to heal the living or harm the undead--the dhampir is always treated as if it's actually undead. So if you have a cleric, his dahmpir buddy, and a ghoul, and the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead). If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).

Edit: In other words, hogarth is correct. :)

Thanks Sean! (and hograth and wraithstrike, lol). I'm gonna have a few disapointed players who have dhampir characters for PFS when I inform them of this.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

godsDMit wrote:

I just wanna make sure Im getting these correctly.

Regarding Negative Energy: So a cleric who uses Channel Positive Energy in order to heal liviing creatures around him would harm a dhampir in that same Channel? If he Channeled Positive Energy to harm undead, it wouldnt do anything to a dhampir, because he is living, right?

No. The intent of the target and the cleric doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the cleric is trying to heal the living or harm the undead--the dhampir is always treated as if it's actually undead. So if you have a cleric, his dahmpir buddy, and a ghoul, and the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead). If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).

Edit: In other words, hogarth is correct. :)

Thanks Sean! (and hograth and wraithstrike, lol). I'm gonna have a few disapointed players who have dhampir characters for PFS when I inform them of this.

Yeah, same. I just told my players and they were without exception angry at that ruling. I eventually assured them that when we play it'd keep being houseruled into the (apparently incorrect) way that that they like more.

Still, I had to spend a while calming them down, and even still two have concluded that the ability working that way ruins the most fun thing about Dhampirs. They're overreacting, certainly, but how much so I can't say since I don't really like this ruling on NEA either.

YES! PLEASE MAKE FAQ UPDATES A WEEKLY (or bi-weekly) BLOG STAPLE!

Seriously, please don't taunt us with a single seasonal instalment. I'd actually check out the blog regularly if I knew there'd be dependable product support updates. It'd renew my faith that clicking the FAQ button accomplishes something. Even if these particular answers don't help me, this is the sort of thing I desperately want to see from Paizo. Thanks very much and please keep up the good work!

YES! PLEASE MAKE FAQ UPDATES A WEEKLY (or bi-weekly) BLOG STAPLE!

Seriously, please don't taunt us with a single seasonal instalment. I'd actually check out the blog regularly if I knew there'd be dependable product support updates. It'd renew my faith that clicking the FAQ button accomplishes something. Even if these particular answers don't help me, this is the sort of thing I desperately want to see from Paizo. Thanks very much and please keep up the good work!

If this happens, could you at least add a picture? Walls of text don't keep my attention as much anymore

Yeah, same. I just told my players and they were without exception angry at that ruling. I eventually assured them that when we play it'd keep being houseruled into the (apparently incorrect) way that that they like more.

Still, I had to spend a while calming them down, and even still two have concluded that the ability working that way ruins the most fun thing about Dhampirs. They're overreacting, certainly, but how much so I can't say since I don't really like this ruling on NEA either.

How had your group inferred the ability worked?

I'm curious too. Did they get healed no matter what or something?

This would be an awesome regular addition to the site, I remember "Sage Advice" in dead tree Dragon quite fondly^^

Thanks Sean. We want more!

Thanks Sean, as you can see this section educated us even more than just the ruling in the faq. Many of us didn't know the core rule that after a touch spell is cast the touch is not part of the casting but a free action that can be delivered that round.

Example: A cleric cast a touch spell and then runs past a threatning enemy to touch his partner, thus healing the ally.

Sean Reynolds I think you should read this post.
This ability still has issues.

Thank you Magus class for being even more awesome

Sean Reynolds I think you should read this post.

This ability still has issues.

Answered, I'll repeat here what I said there.

Basically, if an effect specifically says, "this works this way on living creatures, and this other way on undead," then treat the NEA creature as if it were undead, otherwise, treat it as living.

"Undead are immune to X, Y, Z" is not the same as "this works this way on living creatures, and this other way on undead."

So a dhampir is still affected by charm person because that spell doesn't say "it affects humanoids like X, but affects undead like Y."

Unfortunately, we don't have the option of rewording every single effect in all books in the game to clarify corner cases of how they interact with NEA. GMs will have to use common sense on how to parse the two core elements of NEA, which are, in order:

* The creature is alive (and therefore, unless otherwise specified, is affected as if it were a living creature), but
* If an effect specifies that it does one thing to living creatures and a different thing to undead creatures, the creature with NEA is affected as if it were undead.

Sean, there's nothing to my knowledge that affects undead one way and living another way, other than positive/negative energy, that I'm aware of.

You said earlier that you want to try it like this as an experiment, so, please point out a couple of examples other than channeling positive energy where something explicitly affects undead different than living? I'm trying to see what point this all is?

Unfortunately, we don't have the option of rewording every single effect in all books in the game to clarify corner cases of how they interact with NEA. GMs will have to use common sense on how to parse the two core elements of NEA, which are, in order:

* The creature is alive (and therefore, unless otherwise specified, is affected as if it were a living creature), but
* If an effect specifies that it does one thing to living creatures and a different thing to undead creatures, the creature with NEA is affected as if it were undead.

This begs following question how it will react with effects that only affect Undead (like aforementioned command undead)? It could be claimed that command undead has different effect on living creatures (none) and different on Undeads (enforced friendly attitude). It could be also said that because this spell does not affect living creatures at all it has no effect on NEA creatures because that quality explicitly states that they are living creatures.

Cross posting, respond in whichever thread is preferred.

The wording says 'all affects' not 'all affects where the affect explicitly has a differentiator between live and undead'. All affects is all affects.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I honestly don't see where this wording makes anything clearer, even with your comments. There's nothing else in the system that I know of that explicitly affects undead differently than living within the power itself. Everything that affects undead and living differently comes from the undead traits. Even channel energy comes from there, the only thing in Channel is 'what type of channel am I performing, affect living or undead'. That's not saying something affects living different than the other, it's what am I targeting.

Unfortunately, we don't have the option of rewording every single effect in all books in the game to clarify corner cases of how they interact with NEA. GMs will have to use common sense on how to parse the two core elements of NEA, which are, in order:

* The creature is alive (and therefore, unless otherwise specified, is affected as if it were a living creature), but
* If an effect specifies that it does one thing to living creatures and <also> a different thing to undead creatures, the creature with NEA is affected as if it were undead.

I think that portion makes all the difference in why people get confussed. Also, just for future reference, saying things like use common sense doesn't help a thing (and in all honesty makes you come off as arrogant and unintelligent). The issue is that people apply common sense to the entirety of an arguement, but if a portion is unclear, they will come up with different results.

For example, saying use common sense to:

A.) NEA makes you be treated as if undead for purposses that specifically affect Undead basically does mean change your type to Undead for all intents and purposses but name.

vs

B.) NEA makes you be treated as if undead for purposses that Undead specifically differently in their entry than they do living targets is more spcific.

For A.), common sense could take you to either your Undead in all but name or to what B.) says. B.) however, probably isn't going to take you to A.)

In other words [elder oriental voice] Sun Tzu says "If orders are unclear, it is the commander's fault. But when the orders are clear, and are not carried out, it is the officers fault."[/elder oriental voice] :)

mdt, disrupt undead and sunbeam are two examples. Chill Touch is another.

drejk, those spells or whatever can't even target living creatures. It's the difference between a valid target. The effect is what's commonly called the text of the spell.

So, for example, command undead. It must target undead. It's not even applicable to the living. At all. It's not that it doesn't have an effect that differentiates between living and undead. It's that the living creatures aren't relevant to the ability.

Sean, there's nothing to my knowledge that affects undead one way and living another way, other than positive/negative energy, that I'm aware of.

Examples are:

EDIT: Ninja'ed by Sean.

Also sunburst.

@Sean, I wanted to write chill touch as well, but I just checked it and it *is* negative energy effect according to it's description ("each touch channels negative energy that deals...").

@Cheapy: that's my interpretation too, more or less but more clarification now means less threads that rejuvenate every 1d10 days.

Disrupt undead is described as positive energy effect that only harms undead. As a ray it can be fired against any target, however, so it could be used to torment party dhampir.

Sean, isn't Antagonize still really borked? Any plans to finish the job on that one? I know you said Jason was looking at it, but all that ended up happening was an increase to the DC, which doesnt seem to account for the radically different scaling of skills vs. ability modifiers. It's still cheap insult-comic-dog mind control.

There's nothing else in the system that I know of that explicitly affects undead differently than living within the power itself. Everything that affects undead and living differently comes from the undead traits. Even channel energy comes from there, the only thing in Channel is 'what type of channel am I performing, affect living or undead'. That's not saying something affects living different than the other, it's what am I targeting.

I can think of a few, but they are kind of in the Negative Energy realm.

A lot of affects that deal Level/Ability/Energy Drain specifically grant Undead Temp HP (or similar boosts) instead. A few Weapons and Items have a little extra caviate for Undead, and I think that certain spells specify that the Kill Living and Destroy Undead. This might be a great example of unexpected side affects, actually, (though Common Sense. . .)

Undead are "destroyed" at 0HP, because unlike the living, they do not have that Neg HP buffer. A living creature that is treated as Undead for Implosion (I think, there are a few), technically wouldn't be affected. There is no Destroyed condition for a living creature. So would they be braught to 0HP, unaffected, outright killed, etc. . .?

Using the logic of 'it must explicitly differentiate' then no, Disrupt Undead no more affects living differently from undead does than Charm Person does. Neither spell calls out explicitly that it affects undead/living in different ways.

Sunbeam I'll give you. Although why a dhampir can walk in bright daylight (he's alive) but is damaged by this spell doesn't compute.

Here's one for you Cheapy, why does Disrupt Undead affect a dhampir and Command Undead doesn't? Both spells target undead and have nothing in them about living. So why one and not the other?

*shrug* The dev's have spoken, I think it's just as badly worded now as it was before, but what the hey. I'll just houserule it. All I really wanted was a clarification so I'd know whether to add it to my houserules or not.

Also, just for future reference, saying things like use common sense doesn't help a thing

Sorry, but I'm never going to give up hope that people will actually try to think about what makes sense instead of being deliberately obtuse and demanding a page of explanation for every rule.

It's impossible to write a rule so clearly that everyone will understand it. This rule is going to be weird because (1) the question of "what exactly is negative/positive energy" isn't explained in detail anywhere, and (2) positive/negative energy effects are in just about every hardcover we've published. Ideally, we'd go back through EVERY rule that uses pos or neg energy and clarify what it does to living creatures and undead, and state in the NEA ability that the creature is always treated as undead for these abilities. But we don't have that option, so the GM is going to have to--dramatic music--make a call.

The GM is not a robot. You have a brilliant human brain, the product of millions of years of evolution. I'm complementing you by saying, "I think you can figure this out."

Here's one for you Cheapy, why does Disrupt Undead affect a dhampir and Command Undead doesn't? Both spells target undead and have nothing in them about living. So why one and not the other?

Disrupt undead does not target undead. It creates a ray that can be fired against anything. If it happens to hit undead it will inflict 1d6 points of damage from positive energy. Yes, under previous NEA description it would be more clear that it harms dhampir than under current one.

Sooooo...

Can we get rid of that stupid positive/negative energy duality in Pathfinder 2nd edition, please?

mdt, because disrupt undead acts differently depending on who it hits. It's equally valid to shoot it at a living creature. It just doesn't affect them.

Command Undead? Can't even be used on living, so the effect of it doesn't matter.

Holy Word

DeathWatch

A few nteresting notes A creature with NEAA can not be braught back to life. DeathKnell may or may not work on them and it's also argueable if their bodies can be used in Animate dead or similar spells (you can not reanimate undead bodies).

Raise Dead

Hallow Could potentually have a hanging affect.

Antilife Shell

Wall of Fire

Magic Stone

Items affected by the NEA rulling...

Brilliant Energy weapons cannot affect a Dhampir, since it calls out that undead are specifically not affected by it while normal creatures are.

Life Drinker doesn't affect Dhampir, because it specifically calls out that undead are not affected by the negative level to the wielder, while living are.

Helm of Brilliance glows around Dhampir, and damage them. As it's called out specifically as a different ability against undead.

Mirror's of Lifetrapping do not affect a Dhampir, as undead are called out distinctly as unaffected.