RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The line from Andrew that you referenced as sarcastic, I'm pretty sure wasn't. Not sure why you took it that way.
I don't see much point in trying to debate with you, deusvult. You've made it abundantly clear that you're not interested in it. So one last comment for this discussion, and then I'm done:
Argue RAW vs RAI all you want, but just remember that RAI is still R.
|
As I said before, the only thing that we can all agree on, at this point, is it is up to the table GM to determine the answer to this dilemma and therefore, if you chose to play such a character, be prepared to get different interpretations.
I recommend that you consult your GM before the game starts to find out their opinion on the subject. Take a minute or two to plead your case, but if it doesn't go your way, there are two choices...accept it and play or move on to another table.
I've got absolutely no problem with any of this.
I just thought that maybe there could be a better way. On the other hand, maybe not. I guess it's looking like not.
|
I just thought that maybe there could be a better way. On the other hand, maybe not. I guess it's looking like not.
Of course there is, the designers could FAQ your question from the Rules Forum. That decision would resonate through PFS as well. Short of that, I do not expect this to be answered to the level you are hoping for.
As a steward of PFSOP, I am truly sorry that you are not getting the maximum amount of enjoyment as a result of this issue.
**Again, not being a smart-ass**
|
|
Chris Mortika makes a very good point - going to conventions - seeing other GMs doing rulings helps a lot to keep table variation down.
I would say that I improved a lot over the last 2 years as GM - both for PFS games as in general - thanks to joining the Organized Play Community.
I still make mistakes, I still make the wrong call occasionally. But I try my best.
Edit: and I'm able to correct mistakes if made aware of them.
|
|
Lots of stuff
While you have a lot of good points/information, your post reads as very snarky if not attacking. That tends to diminish any positive contributions you make to the discussion. I hope that is not the way you intended it to be.
I recommend this to anyone who posts, preview your text before posting it. Read it aloud and maybe even walk away for a few minutes to clear your mind and then read it again before submitting. Your posts will be given much more value if it is neutral in tone.
|
|
.
I disagree that a GM gets to fiat something that is contradictory to RAW.
.
RAW a horse companion has a Str of 16 leading to a +3 on strength checks.
RAW climb is Strength basedRAW a knotted rope has a climb DC of 5
So as long as a player roles at least a 2 on a d20 I should allow him according to your statement to climb up the rope with his horse?
Quot erat demonstrandum.
I'm fully aware this is likely not what you mean with the above sentence. But you either adhere 100% to RAW and then the horse can climb up the rope until the developers make a rule that disallows it - or you accept that GM fiat is necessary.
I think most people here don't mind that you are of different opinion on LoH. But if you tell a GM never to use GM fiat, then this is just against his experience to GM a good game.
I would guess in many cases players and GM don't even notice that RAW has been broken because it is the accepted way how you have seen it 10 times before and how it is accepted by the community.
It is accepted that horses can't climb up a rope. You would seem ridiculous to insist on RAW on a table or in the rules section to argue otherwise despite actually being right.
|
|
Sure, 'giving players the benefit of the doubt if interpretations differ' can be exploited or taken too far. THAT is the sort of line a GM should be drawing.. is the integrity of the rules being protected by saying a paladin can't heal a Dhamphir? Is it better for everyone to say a Dhampir Oracle with the Energy Body burns himself while healing his mates?
Do those need to be lumped in with people trying to justify, for example...
.
I disagree that a GM gets to fiat something that is contradictory to RAW.
.RAW a horse companion has a Str of 16 leading to a +3 on strength checks.
RAW climb is Strength based
RAW a knotted rope has a climb DC of 5So as long as a player roles at least a 2 on a d20 I should allow him according to your statement to climb up the rope with his horse?
Quot erat demonstrandum.
Thanks for giving me a better example of taking 'giving the players benefit of the doubt' too far than the one I used.
So, to recap:
Does anyone consider letting a dhampir paladin/oracle heal himself to be the same egregious category as someone trying to justify a horse climing a rope?
If you do, we're done here, we'll never see eye to eye.
|
|
Thanks for giving me a better example of taking 'giving the players benefit of the doubt' too far than the one I used.So, to recap:
Does anyone consider letting a dhampir paladin/oracle heal himself to be the same egregious category as someone trying to justify a horse climing a rope?
If you do, we're done here, we'll never see eye to eye.
Yes.
|
|
:
Does anyone consider letting a dhampir paladin/oracle heal himself to be the same egregious category as someone trying to justify a horse climing a rope?
.
No - the issue is where in-between the two do I draw the line as GM and I'm allowed to disregard RAW and where should I stop.
The point I was trying to make was - there is accepted precedent to break RAW. It seems even you accept this. And this then changes the whole question to when is it okay to GM fiat not if it is okay to GM fiat.
And this goes full circle back to when to follow RAI and when to follow RAW with all the caveats that RAI have as being not defined and therefore open to interpretation.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
That's the sort of thing that everyone agrees shouldn't happen. When I say that a PFS GM should be more open minded to a rules interpretation that is inconsistent with his own, it doesn't mean it should go to that extreme.
IMO a player should always drop it after giving at most one "but.." in defense of his view. Not only out of consideration to the GM and the players at the table who have to endure the discussion, but doubly so due to the time constraints on PFS OP scenarios.
EDIT- Situation is completely different in a rules discussion thread on 'teh internets'. if you don't wanna put up with it, don't click on it! :D
|
Sure, 'giving players the benefit of the doubt if interpretations differ' can be exploited or taken too far. THAT is the sort of line a GM should be drawing.. is the integrity of the rules being protected by saying a paladin can't heal a Dhamphir? Is it better for everyone to say a Dhampir Oracle with the Energy Body burns himself while healing his mates?
Do those need to be lumped in with people trying to justify, for example...
.
I disagree that a GM gets to fiat something that is contradictory to RAW.
.RAW a horse companion has a Str of 16 leading to a +3 on strength checks.
RAW climb is Strength based
RAW a knotted rope has a climb DC of 5So as long as a player roles at least a 2 on a d20 I should allow him according to your statement to climb up the rope with his horse?
Quot erat demonstrandum.
Thanks for giving me a better example of taking 'giving the players benefit of the doubt' too far than the one I used.
So, to recap:
Does anyone consider letting a dhampir paladin/oracle heal himself to be the same egregious category as someone trying to justify a horse climing a rope?
If you do, we're done here, we'll never see eye to eye.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The two examples, while not nearly the same scale of ludicrosity, are essentially the same issue.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t propose a double standard while yelling about an alluded to double standard.
Either GM’s are robots and only there to regurgitate RAW and scenario text exactly, or they are there to provide the most fun they can to the maximum number of people they can.
You are saying GM’s can’t use RAI and must use RAW. However, you now want to differentiate between the two situations.
Where do we draw the line? Where I see it as silly or cheesy, or where you do?
|
|
Deusvult
Here might be a better example:
Can a Damphir Paladin heal himself?
Can any Paladin damage a haunt using LoH?
I think players have the right to expect yes in both cases - yet once it only works without positive energy once it only works with positive energy.
So what do I do as GM?
responded to in the rules thread.
|
|
Does anyone consider letting a dhampir paladin/oracle heal himself to be the same egregious category as someone trying to justify a horse climing a rope?
Of course not, but now you are advocating that there are degrees to RAW over RAI. The horse example is ridiculous, but it does illustrate that using "strict RAW" as a basis for your argument can, at times, blow up in your face.
I, for one, am not arguing that your thoughts on LoH is right or wrong. My point is that I disagree with your logic. Since this is clearly an example of a lack of clarity in the rules, I leave it to the GM to adjudicate. There really is no other way to rule until a designer weighs in.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've pointed Sean Reynolds to this post. It is something that is PFRPG wide and not just PFS OP. He and I discussed. I will let him elaborate on our discussion in this post.
(Why is it that the notion of having a dev make a ruling feels like Christmas morning to me? I don't even care whether it's positive energy or not, and I'm still ecstatic!)
I removed a post and the replies to it. Don't abuse the quote function. Don't call people names.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things to remember:
The Core Rulebook was written assuming you're playing one of the PC races in that book.
All of those PC races are healed by positive energy.
The paladin has channel positive energy as a class ability--an ability that was added in the PFRPG (in 3.5, they had turn undead).
The 3.5 paladin LOH writeup didn't mention positive/negative energy because channeling positive or negative energy as a class ability (whether cleric or paladin) wasn't a concept in 3.5. Therefore, 3.5 LOH didn't state that it was channeled positive energy, partly for that reason and partly because the 3.5 PH also assumed you were playing one of the standard PC races.
The PF wording of LOH is an example of using the 3.5 wording without revising it to cover all the consequences of the rules changes in PF, such as good clerics and paladins gaining channel positive energy, and without considering that a future book would have a potential PC race with negative energy affinity (a universal monster rule that didn't exist when the Core Rulebook was written).
If LOH (whether 3.5 or PF) said "heal a living creature" or "uses positive energy to heal," this discussion wouldn't be happening at all.
That said, it's pretty obvious that the paladin is a class that uses holy power/positive energy for its abilities, and therefore its LOH healing should be considered a positive energy source rather than a "typeless" healing like resting, using the Heal skill, or the monk's wholeness of body ability. There's no good reason why the paladin's LOH should be considered "typeless" rather than positive, and at least one good reason why it should be considered positive rather than "typeless." Therefore, we're considering LOH to be a positive energy effect.
Therefore, a dhampir paladin hurts himself if he uses LOH on himself.
Technically, there's nothing in the Guidebook that says PFS players are allowed to post in the PFS forum...
:P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In particular, Sean, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning, in a way that makes sense and allows us to extrapolate to other analogous situations, whatever they might be.
This too. That's something I really appreciate about Paizo clarifications.
|
|
Therefore, a dhampir paladin hurts himself if he uses LOH on himself.
If a cleric has to choose when they channel to heal the living or hurt undead, shouldn't the Paladin have to choose the same way. So if he chooses to heal the living it should have no effect on the undead (dhampir). Its only if they channel to harm undead that it matters. Right?
|
|
If a cleric has to choose when they channel to heal the living or hurt undead, shouldn't the Paladin have to choose the same way. So if he chooses to heal the living it should have no effect on the undead (dhampir). Its only if they channel to harm undead that it matters. Right?
That's only in the case of a neutral cleric worshiping a neutral or evil deity. In this case, it is a paladin. Lawful Good. I don't see a lawful Good paladin channeling negative energy, even if it was ambiguous in the rules (which it is not).
If a cleric has to choose when they channel to heal the living or hurt undead, shouldn't the Paladin have to choose the same way. So if he chooses to heal the living it should have no effect on the undead (dhampir). Its only if they channel to harm undead that it matters. Right?That's only in the case of a neutral cleric worshiping a neutral or evil deity. In this case, it is a paladin. Lawful Good. I don't see a lawful Good paladin channeling negative energy, even if it was ambiguous in the rules (which it is not).
Actually, Bob, not quite. From the Core Book:
A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels
positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead
creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one
who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can
choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead
creatures. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or
one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose
whether she channels positive or negative energy.
A good cleric, or a paladin, always channels positive energy, but each time they do, they have to choose to either heal the living or harm the undead.
And for Atrius' question, whether the good cleric or paladin is healing or harming with their channel, a dhampir will take damage regardless because it is both living and undead due to having the Negative Energy Affinity ability, which makes it undead for the purposes of any channeling.
|
|
whether the good cleric or paladin is healing or harming with their channel, a dhampir will take damage regardless because it is both living and undead due to having the Negative Energy Affinity ability, which makes it undead for the purposes of any channeling.
I disagree. It simply reacts to positive/negative energy as an undead.
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex): The creature alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead--positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
If it reacts to positive energy as an undead, why would it take damage if someone channeled positive energy to heal? In order to do damage to an undead, you have to channel positive energy to harm. Per SKR, LoH is positive energy. That would seem to indicate that if you used LoH on a Dhampir, to heal, nothing would happen. Just like if your cleric channels positive energy to heal in a battle with undead. S/he does not have to exempt the undead because it has no effect on them.
BTW, I appear to have misunderstood Atrius's post and the info in this response is more applicable to his question.
|
|
stuff
Please be careful. Your tone sounds a bit attacking.
Deusvult was merely indicating that he believed that the RAW did in fact cover this case. His position was that since LoH lacked any descriptive text declaring it as positive energy, that it was not and therefore did not follow the rules for positive energy. So if the GM decided to call it positive energy, s/he was going against RAW.
While I could see his point, most of us agreed that it was an error of omission and that it was clear that the RAI was for LoH to be positive energy in nature. That position was supported by SKR's post.
I think we can lay this topic to rest. The ambiguity in the rules has been clarified. No need to continue beating the dead horse.
|
|
If it reacts to positive energy as an undead, why would it take damage if someone channeled positive energy to heal? In order to do damage to an undead, you have to channel positive energy to harm. Per SKR, LoH is positive energy. That would seem to indicate that if you used LoH on a Dhampir, to heal, nothing would happen. Just like if your cleric channels positive energy to heal in a battle with undead. S/he does not have to exempt the undead because it has no effect on them.
BTW, I appear to have misunderstood Atrius's post and the info in this response is more applicable to his question.
Bob, I think LOH is more analogous to using a "Cure" spell - which heals or damages automatically depending on the target. The paladin equivalent to channeling: channeling :)
|
|
I think we can lay this topic to rest. The ambiguity in the rules has been clarified. No need to continue beating the dead horse.
+1
Deussu is right, too. I hope they in the future just include positive energy descriptors whenever they are applicible, and avoid relying on people to infer which 'should' be.
LoH and Oracle Energy Body are probably clear enough from Sean's explanation.
Wholeness of Body & Fast healing are also clear enough (in that they are NOT positive energy)
Heavenly Fire and Goodberry (and probably some others) are still pretty suseptible to varying interpretations, however.
Plop the descriptor in, and we won't have to guess.
|
|
I think LOH is more analogous to using a "Cure" spell - which heals or damages automatically depending on the target. The paladin equivalent to channeling: channeling :)
Therefore, a dhampir paladin hurts himself if he uses LOH on himself
Yes, I saw that quote, but I am concerned that this brings into being another question. We have declared that LoH is positive energy, and using two of them results in a Channel Energy burst.
Does that mean two Cure spells are equivalent to a Channel Energy burst?
IMO, LoH more closely resembles Channeled Energy just with a target rather than an AoE. It seems odd to me that you have to declare CE as a harm/heal effect, but you don't with LoH.
I'm not saying that I am right and he is wrong or anything, just that there seems to be another non-clarity in the rule. I will accept SRK's ruling as "law," just didn't understand the explanation behind that part of the issue.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see. I might be able to help with that, actually:
A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures.
....
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric.
I think the intent here is that you don't choose type AND effect (i.e., undead and harm, or living and heal), but rather that you simply choose type (undead or living) and the nature of the energy does the rest (harming or healing).
Basically, if you take those lines about harm versus heal to be convenient specification (so you don't have to look up positive and negative energy on your own) rather than being a part of your choice, then your question gets answered and it all still meshes with the rest of the rules. So that's how I'd take it.
