Beckett's page

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

V20 pages 212 - 213 says after level 2+ in the Primary path, you can take a second path.

2 can't be + or higher than primary path, and you can't take a 3rd path until primary is 5+.

Almost all Tremere take Path of Blood, though ST may allow other.

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.

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.

That's because there are no rules for all the ways guns would wreck their users faces with magic in the picture.

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.

I'd drop the Despite being Alive

and say treated as if Undead when being affected by Pos or Neg Energy.

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.

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.

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".

:)

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.

Malkavian could be cool. Never really be a fan of the slapstick commedy Malkavians.

Wanna make sure I'm understanding this right, I have Thaum 3, and my paths could be Conjuration 2, Technomacy 1, just by spending my normal three Discipline points?

I am less familair with Thaumaturgy, but I'm pretty sure that

1.) you need to have over 3 in your Primary path before you can begin a Secondary Path(s), and your Thaumaturgy rating is the same as your Primary Path.

2.) As a Tremere, your Primary Path (in V20) is always the Path of Blood, as the Tremere require you to be proficient in it before teaching anything else. (I could be wrong here).

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.

I think it is one where you say something intended to upset people or provoke responses and then sit back and watch people argue.

"I just wanted to pop in and say __________ sucks."

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.

Ok, just trying to understand what you meant.

Raise Dead, Chill Touch, Deathwatch, Death Knell (potentually).

It also raises the issues with things like Lifedrinker and Briliant Energy. Are the Positive/Negative Energy? Sunsword?

My point was that if I downplay a monster it can lose to anyone.

agreed

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.

What I'm saying is, this needs to be understandable to anyone who has not been following these two threads. The way it sounds, if an NPC Cleric Channels Positive Energy to heal his living allies, the Dhampir would instead get hurt, because he is alive, but treats positive energy the same way an undead would.

But it really isn't a factor, and really not on topic.

As you said, if a commoner could do it with the right gear, that would be doubly true for the rest of the party, which is where the comparison is being made. They would have about the same WBL, hence it is not relevant, unless it is very far out of wack and superfavors the Paladin, (no indication this is true).

The standard we use? We don't know anything about their game. Is it low magic, are items handed out like candy, can they buy whatever they want, etc. . .

We are not talking about challenges to a party.

A Fighter or Barbarian would not have been able to heal themself and continue attacking. Granted the energy drain may have caused the fight to last a little longer, but that would have hurt the Fighter and Barbarian just the same or worse.

The creature is alive (so it would be hit by channels that hit living creatures) but affected as if they are undead (so get the opposite affect pos hurts, neg heals).

So, lets say you have a 5th level caster trying to cast a spell against a 3rd level Drow.

The 5th level would roll 1d20 + 5 (their caster level) and need to beat a 9 on the Spell Resistance check, (that is to say roll a 4 or better).

Depending on what spell it is, the spell may fail completely, or just not affect that target. For example, if the spell where fireball, and the character DID NOT beat the SR, the Drow would not be hurt at all, and not even need to roll a Refl Save. The spell just fizzle around them. However, the fireball still goes off otherwise, so anyone else in the are would need to see if they are hit and make a save still.

On the other hand, Inflict Light Wounds, if it does not beat the SR, is completely wasted.

as for teh % -> Save bonus, it is not balanced at all, but not in the way you mean. Caracters with high saves are going to become immune to magic, even if their SR would otherwise be low, while characters with poor saves might not see much benefit at all, even if they have fairly high SR.

That means when you try to cast a spell against them, you need to roll a Caster Level check against that SR, (which essentually acts like Armor Class).

I think that actually makes it worse for the Channel Energy issue. They are affected differently, but would still be "targeted" as alive.

Part 1: You got the Touch, you got the Power!

That is amazing. :)

I'm just curious, can anyone find any issue with my earlier attempt to rewrite the NEA ability?

Oddly, SKR's post wasn't there prior to me posting, and I'd just refreshed. My biggest suggestion would be to simply add in "instead of a Living creature" after "as if they where Undead." From my understanding, that seems to be the issue some people are having.

PS: -1 for not changing Channel Energy

Okay a couple of points. No one has still discussed at all how the cleric and his party gets to the base of the waterfall.

The water is only treated as solid for purposses of walking on it. You can still walk through water, this spell does not repel water, just makes you hover slightly over it. So again, the water is not actually solid. You can not pick it up and throw it like a rock, it is not slick like ice, (you are not actualy standing on the running water) and if someone causes you to fall onto water with this spell on, you will go splash and go underwater, then rise right back up above it, (not go spat and take damage for hitting a brick wall).

So you could very easily walk over the pool to the waterfall, step into it, (becomming fully or partially submerged) and then start being lifted to a point where all the water is below your feet.

To me, that is clearly what is both RAW and RAI, and adding all those things to try not to allow it is going outside of what the spell does and breaking the spirit of what the spell should be able to do.

I think you are confussing things up here. The party is Level 5. He and the Sorcerer "soloed" the dragon, and it's not unlikely that said Sorcer would have some of these spells, and the Paly could cast Shield of Faith on self, not to mention have a potion/wand or two.

WBL isn't that relavent, honestly. It's a guideline, not a straight jacket. Maybe they where on the upper end of Level 5, (or using the slow advancement, so coud actually have appropriate gear more around level 6 or 7. Which is perfectly fine. Maybe someone in the party made them magical armor? Hack, maybe the freakin paladin decided to make and craft it themselves.

So your problem is solved - because I'm sure that the Paladin lost all his powers immediately once he started doing things like making truces with Vampire Warlords and handing over magic items in apology for killing a Dragon...

The PathFinde Core book and entirety of the Carrion Crown AP disagree with you.

Shield of Faith, Combat Expertise (or similar), Sorcerer casting a buff or two, (Eagles Splendor, Shield, Magic Vestment), Potions. Various Archtypes might also help.

It's also possible that they found this gear, so WBL may not be relavent so much, or particularly #% of WBL.

Cha to AC, yes?

Another +1

I had suggested a long time ago, something like a Channeling pool that the Cleric get to spend on both hurting and healing (in like d6 increments, with a max number of d6 equal to the normal number of d6 for Channel Level, and someone at Paizo was liking the idea, but then I never heard anything else about it.

I have always found the either/or aspect of channeling both rubbish and dissapointing. It is only really a balance issue with early level NPC Evil Clerics, but that goes away fairly quickly as Channel doesn't work well at all past like level 3 - 5.

Scott Betts wrote:

Beckett wrote:

I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one.

People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

It's one thing to say we can do x better. It's another to say "if you used x in your 3.5 game, then it probably wasn't much fun." That's the kind of thing that ticked people off.

Who where you responding to?

Glad you like. I actually kind of prefere the Revised book so far, especially the look. I wasn't much of a fan of 2nd Ed, and that seems exactly the direction they took it. Also, down in the Other Games section, there was thread that highlighted some of the significant changes, if your interested. Gangrel and Tremere Weaknessess, Celerety and Potence, and Splitting Dicepools are most significant, I think.

I'll take another look at this when I get a chance. You might be right. :)

The new wording seems good aside from the targetting issue, which is still unclear. You specified elsewhere in this thread that NEA causes them to be targetted as undead as well as affected, but not in the actual NEA text.

If it's obvious (and considering the number of people pointing out targetting here it is) that targeting for NEA is going to cause this much difficulty, why not simply add in a couple words to remove such a big point of confusion?

What do you think of this?

"Negative Energy Affinity (Ex): The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if it were an undead creature instead of a living creature. Spells and affects that utilize Positive or Negative Energy likewise affect a creature with Negative Energy Affinity as if they where an Undead Creature rather than a living target(, unless they would be affected soley on the condition of havine an Undead trait, such as Immunity to Fatigue or Energy Drain)."

I should point out that the Raise Dead issue is still a problem if all Positive/Negative Energy affects work on NEA as if they are Undead. Not really a way around that unless you specify that is an exception or argue that just because it's a Conjuration (Healing) spell, it is not actually Positive Energy. <very flimsy>

Edited:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if it were an undead creature instead of a living creature. Spells and affects that utilize Positive or Negative Energy likewise affect a creature with Negative Energy Affinity as if they where an Undead Creature rather than a living target(, unless they would be affected soley on the condition of havine an Undead trait, such as Immunity to Fatigue or Energy Drain).

Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

The Dhampir is still a living creature though so I would think it can still be raised.

Yes, but Raise Undead specifies that it can not raise an Undead creature.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I think this general statement is clear enough. Any questions?

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if it were an undead creature. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

This wording still leaves some ambiguity as to how the NEA creature is targeted when the channeler selects living or undead targets.

Perhaps use something more along the lines of this.

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The living creature is treated as an undead creature for determining the target and effect of the channel energy ability and the Cure/Inflict family of spells.

It is less that NEA is unclear and more that Channel Energy works wonkily, and people don't understand that so well.

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if it were an undead creature instead of a living creature. Spells and affects that utilize Positive or Negative Energy likewise affect a creature with Negative Energy Affinity as if they where an Undead Creature rather than a living target(, unless they would be affected soley on the condition of havine an Undead trait, such as Immunity to Fatigue or Energy Drain).

Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Have I mentioned how much I prefer the Beta version of Channel Energy? Oy.

Oh Hell Yes!!!

[tangent]

And then there's the funkitude of Alignment Channel, where I can take Alignment Channel (Good) and be able to use positive energy to *kill angels,* or negative energy to *heal angels.* (Not that anyone would do that. When do you, A) adventure with angels as a bad guy, or B) fight angels as a good-guy anyway? Is it worth a feat to you to be able to heal angels with negative energy or harm angels with positive energy? If so, what sort of game are you in, and is Alignment Channel (Good) still going to see more use than Mounted Giant Space Hamster Proficiency?)

Alignment Channel (Evil) is the only choice to take, whether you are a good cleric of Iomedae and have demon enemies you want to smite with your channeled positive energy or an evil cleric of Asmodeus and have devil allies you want to heal with your negative energy.
[/tangent]

Preach on, brother. :)

It looks good to me. Are you still wanting to include a few other affects, like Chill Touch and Searing Light?

Holy Word

DeathWatch

A few interesting notes A creature with NEA 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). Briliant Energy Weapons? LifeDrinker?

Raise Dead

Hallow Could potentually have a hanging affect.

Antilife Shell

Wall of Fire

Magic Stone

why is there a spell and feat named Command Undead? :(

I tend to just call the Feat version "Suicide when you Least Expect It". :)

For some reason, the other thread isn't allowing me to post this, but I figured it would be pertinent here, too.

Holy Word

DeathWatch

A few interesting notes A creature with NEA 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). Briliant Energy Weapons? LifeDrinker?

Raise Dead

Hallow Could potentually have a hanging affect.

Antilife Shell

Wall of Fire

Magic Stone

He/She's right.

Also added more to my list on the last page. Notably Raise Dead.

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

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. . .?