Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Circumventing Shadowbound curse with Lightbringer?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I have a player who is interested in using the Shadowbound oracle curse. The downside of this curse is that "You are blinded for 1 round when exposed to normal or bright light and dazzled while in such a lit area." However, this player is also using an elf character with the "Lightbringer" alternate racial trait, which makes them immune to light based blindness and dazzle effects. Is this a legal choice? I am willing to let my player do this if it checks out mechanically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Shadowbound Curse wrote:
You are blinded for 1 round when exposed to normal or bright light and dazzled while in such a lit area. You gain darkvision to a range of 30 feet.
Lightbringer wrote:
Elves with this racial trait are immune to light-based blindness and dazzle effects, and are treated as one level higher when determining the effects of any light-based spell or effect they cast (including spell-like and supernatural abilities).

On one hand, this looks completely legal. You are immune to light-based blindness and dazzling, and Shadowbound... does light-based blinding and dazzling. So you become immune to your own curse.

On the other hand, this is selecting an Oracle Curse that has absolutely no mechanical drawback whatsoever, and thus walks all over both the fluff of the Shadowbound curse, and the fluff that oracles suffer the curse as a counterbalance for their divine powers.

If you as the GM would allow it, then mechanically it works and he safely can ignore a major class drawback. If it were me, however, I would ask him to pick another curse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Oracle's Curse (Ex): Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. [b]The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity.[b] An oracle's curse is based on her oracle level plus one for every two levels or Hit Dice other than oracle. Each oracle must choose one of the following curses.

Basically, the Oracle's Curse is not intended to be circumvented by conventional means. In this case, the Oracle would be immune to all light-blindness except that caused by their curse.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Quote:
Oracle's Curse (Ex): Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. [b]The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity.[b] An oracle's curse is based on her oracle level plus one for every two levels or Hit Dice other than oracle. Each oracle must choose one of the following curses.
Basically, the Oracle's Curse is not intended to be circumvented by conventional means. In this case, the Oracle would be immune to all light-blindness except that caused by their curse.

I've heard it the opposite, that the Oracle Curse is intended to be allowed to be circumvented, but the character can't truly remove the Oracle Curse. Like, for example, a Lame Oracle that travels everywhere via a mount. And for Non-PFS play, your race could be changed during the game (like via reincarnation) and this oracle curse would remain.

I will note that the Source for the Shadowbound curse is the Horror Realms book. None of the curses from that book seem on par with the curses from other books. I don't own that book, so perhaps they are better explained in the context they are presented in.

Beyond that, as far as Curses go, the Shadowbound curse offers very little benefit. At first level he gains Darkvision 30ft, which is hardly an accomplishment. At 5th, he's only got Darkvision 60ft. And at 10th and 15th, he's only gaining additional spells. So it's a pretty mediocre set of abilties gained from the curse.

And on top of that, if he takes Lightbringer, that means he's an Elf, so no casting stat racial bonus.

So for rules and balance, I see nothing wrong with this combo. For making a good character, I think this curse is lacking and he should find a better curse. Oracle Curses can be a huge advantage for the PC, if you design your build right. This one is very mediocre.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Circumvent is very different from nullified. If you have the Shadowbound curse and you live under a permanent penumbra effect, you have circumvented it, the curse exist but is ineffective. But with the Lightbringer trait you have nullified it, as if it don't exist anymore. I wouldn't allow this combo.

It is very similar to taking lame and the Cinder Dance oracle revelation. Something that is explicitly prohibited by a FAQ.


I'm also not a fan of wolfscarred mute double curse shennanigans. Or tounges mute double curse shennanigans. Both of which are banned in my games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there a statement about "order of operations" of character qualities anywhere? Because it seems like that is the issue.

ORDER 1: Race qualities then class qualities

In this order, the lightbringer elf would have been immune to dazzled until their first level of shadowbound oracle, at which time the curse would kick in, nullifying their immunity and bringing the penalty.

ORDER 2: Class qualities then race qualities

In this order the shadowbound oracle would receive the curse, which would then be nullified by their racial lightbringer trait.

If there isn't an order of operations specified anywhere, I'd say this has to be a GM call.

My personal call would be that the oracle's curse supersedes the underlying racial ability, because most oracle curses overlay an intrinsic ability that a character would have by virtue of their race or type/subtype.

For instance, an elf has a base move of 30 feet. The lame curse reduces that. Would your player argue that because the character is an elf, that the elf racial base movement of 30 ft. over-rides the reduction in speed of the oracle curse?

For another instance, elves receive Common and Elvish, plus a selection of languages if they have sufficient Intelligence. The tongues curse limits a character's communication to a single language in combat. Would your player argue that because the elf racial entry specifies they can speak Common and Elvish, that means in combat their tongues curse does not apply?

I could go through pretty much every standard curse I can think of off the top of my head and apply the same argument.


The tounges curse gives a clear list of what you speak. Regardless of ability to speak or understand it. Hence the term speaking in tounges.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
The tounges curse gives a clear list of what you speak. Regardless of ability to speak or understand it. Hence the term speaking in tounges.

I know. That's my point. The tongues curse clearly says what you can speak in combat. No one argues that your base racial languages are somehow also what you can speak in combat. Therefore, why would it be that a different curse (shadowbound) that affected an innate racial quality (lightbringer) somehow be subsumed or nullified by that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I originally was going to say LightBringer nullifies the curse but Quibble address the issue in a logical manner I can't really argue against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Cavall wrote:
The tounges curse gives a clear list of what you speak. Regardless of ability to speak or understand it. Hence the term speaking in tounges.
I know. That's my point. The tongues curse clearly says what you can speak in combat. No one argues that your base racial languages are somehow also what you can speak in combat. Therefore, why would it be that a different curse (shadowbound) that affected an innate racial quality (lightbringer) somehow be subsumed or nullified by that?

That doesn't follow through though. For instance, Wyrwoods with Consumed curse don't suddenly gain the ability to take non-lethal damage: As constructs, their bodies can't be damaged that way much like they can't bleed. It's much like condition vs immunity.

Tongues limits your normal access to languages during combat but doesn't remove their existence. Nothing says that the curses limit is absolute. For instance, a Ring of Eloquence grants languages and "The wearer retains the ability to speak in these languages even if she assumes a form normally unable to do so". Why wouldn't the ring be allowed to work as it explicitly spells out it CAN. Now if this was a racial ability why would it work differently?

Basically without a proviso in the curse trumps other abilities, immunities are going to beat conditions.

Cavall: Where is mute from? I don't see it in any listing of curses I have.

EDIT: And to add a wrinkle, what if you take dual curse and one curse makes you immune to the other curse? Take Plagued and legalistic or Covetous. Plagued makes you immune to sickness and the other two cause sickness. If you think curses trump other abilities, which curse wins?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mute is from Jade regent, some NPC has it. But it seem incomplete, and very problematic to play.

The Ring of Eloquence bypass the limit of of having a form that is unable to speak, the oracle with the tongues curse is able to speak, so that do nothing for him. Without a specific mention of that it don't bypass the oracle curse.

I don't know why people think that the goods laying a curse on an oracle are stupid.
Giving the consumed curse to a wyrwoods oracle is useless, so I wouldn't allow it in any game.


seems fine no different than a oracle with lame curse getting something that increases speed by 10 feet, or an oracle that gets healed by negative energy choosing to get the negative energy spells.

also this locks him into being an elf which is pretty terrible for an oracle -2con and no +cha


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:
I originally was going to say LightBringer nullifies the curse but Quibble address the issue in a logical manner I can't really argue against.

the curse does not state that is suppresses immunities that are already in place or that come into play in the future so it would not suppress lightbringer nor would any curse that invokes the sickend condition be able to bypass an immunity to being sickend

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM I use a general rule of thumb; if you gain a benefit from a penalty but you somehow negate the penalty then you do not gain the benefit. But you can make the penalty meaningless and still gain the benefit.

Now, I go case by case with this but enough abilities become more balanced taking this idea into consideration.

An example, if you have the lame curse but gained an ability that heals your lameness then you would gain no benefit from the curse. But riding a horse does not negate the curse only makes it meaningless as the horse is not lame. Gaining a level of barbarian would not negate the curse either as you are still 10ft slower.

Another example, the barbarian class and rage cycling. Before level 17 their rage causes them to be fatigued so any ability that prevents them from being fatigued would also prevent them from gaining the benefits of rage. But at 17 when they get tireless rage that no longer becomes an issue.

As a side note, I would also say any ability that heals or nullifies the curse counts as removing or dispelling the curse. And thus the curse should override the ability unless it is granted by a deity directly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Cavall wrote:
The tounges curse gives a clear list of what you speak. Regardless of ability to speak or understand it. Hence the term speaking in tounges.
I know. That's my point. The tongues curse clearly says what you can speak in combat. No one argues that your base racial languages are somehow also what you can speak in combat. Therefore, why would it be that a different curse (shadowbound) that affected an innate racial quality (lightbringer) somehow be subsumed or nullified by that?

That doesn't follow through though. For instance, Wyrwoods with Consumed curse don't suddenly gain the ability to take non-lethal damage: As constructs, their bodies can't be damaged that way much like they can't bleed. It's much like condition vs immunity.

...

Basically without a proviso in the curse trumps other abilities, immunities are going to beat conditions.

Why?

You're assuming the order of operations (see my original reply) is "class qualities then race qualities". Is there a place in the rules that specifies that that is the default assumption?

There is just as much reason to assume that order "race qualities, then class qualities" applies. In the wyrwood example, I would let a player take the consumed curse, which would strip them of their normal racial/type immunity to non-lethal damage.

I'm not saying that interpreting the rules to say that a creature's immunities supersede a class feature like the oracle curse is wrong. What I am saying is that there is nothing to say that you can't rule that way. It may seem "obvious" to some that a wyrwood can never under any circumstances take non-lethal damage, but why couldn't the gods curse one of them to be able to do so?

As far as dual cursed and immunity, I would resolve it so that the worse of two outcomes applied. Why assume that the best outcome is somehow the "obvious" or "natural" or "clear" one, when there's no reason why benefits should supersede penalties rather than the other way round? (Again, unless someone can point me to an "order of operations" specification in the rules).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I originally was going to say LightBringer nullifies the curse but Quibble address the issue in a logical manner I can't really argue against.
the curse does not state that is suppresses immunities that are already in place or that come into play in the future so it would not suppress lightbringer nor would any curse that invokes the sickend condition be able to bypass an immunity to being sickend

It doesn't say that it doesn't suppress those either. My original post spells out the two ways of interpreting it.

I don't think either interpretation (even though they disagree) is outside of the existing rules. But I do think that there isn't a clear reason to pick one over the other, within the context of the rules. Therefore it is a GM's call as to which seems more reasonable or workable.

Again, you have the following situation:

(A) The character has an immunity to X.
(B) The character has a curse that causes X.

Either you read it so that you apply A and then B (the character gets X) or you read it so that you apply B and then A (the character does not get X).

But where in the rules (and I'm open to a citation that shows this) does it say which way of applying it is the correct one?

EDIT - To be clear, I am talking about the oracle curse as a class feature, not just the condition X. Reading some of the posts above, there is an assumption that the condition received by the oracle's curse class feature functions identically to all other sources of a condition (e.g., if you're immune to non-lethal and somehow hits you with a sap, you ignore it).

HOWEVER, in the way I tend to rule on this conflict, I'm considering it as a class feature, not as a condition. The oracle doesn't have the "cursed" condition which then gives them another negative condition. They have been cursed by the gods. Therefore, whatever their original innate abilities stemming from type/subtype/race, those are no longer in play as far as the curse is concerned. So the wyrwood, for instance, would take the non-lethal damage from their curse, but would ignore non-lethal damage from a sap attack.

The gods are jerks.


quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I originally was going to say LightBringer nullifies the curse but Quibble address the issue in a logical manner I can't really argue against.
the curse does not state that is suppresses immunities that are already in place or that come into play in the future so it would not suppress lightbringer nor would any curse that invokes the sickend condition be able to bypass an immunity to being sickend

It doesn't say that it doesn't suppress those either. My original post spells out the two ways of interpreting it.

I don't think either interpretation (even though they disagree) is outside of the existing rules. But I do think that there isn't a clear reason to pick one over the other, within the context of the rules. Therefore it is a GM's call as to which seems more reasonable or workable.

Again, you have the following situation:

(A) The character has an immunity to X.
(B) The character has a curse that causes X.

Either you read it so that you apply A and then B (the character gets X) or you read it so that you apply B and then A (the character does not get X).

But where in the rules (and I'm open to a citation that shows this) does it say which way of applying it is the correct one?

if a creature has immunity to fire and is hit with a fireball that deals fire damage does it take damage? no it does not unless the thing casting the fireball has an ability that specifically stats that they can bypass fire immunity. non of the curses say their effect bypass immunity there for they do not other wise immunities would be pointless and every one would be bypassing them


Lady-J wrote:
if a creature has immunity to fire and is hit with a fireball that deals fire damage does it take damage? no it does not unless the thing casting the fireball has an ability that specifically stats that they can bypass fire immunity. non of the curses say their effect bypass immunity there for they do not other wise immunities would be pointless and every one would be bypassing them

See my edit above.

I'm talking about a class feature that comes from the gods, not every situation in which the immunity applies.

As the rules say: "Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. The oracle’s curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity."

It doesn't say that "if the oracle has a pre-existing immunity, that removes the hindrance part of the curse."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
if a creature has immunity to fire and is hit with a fireball that deals fire damage does it take damage? no it does not unless the thing casting the fireball has an ability that specifically stats that they can bypass fire immunity. non of the curses say their effect bypass immunity there for they do not other wise immunities would be pointless and every one would be bypassing them

See my edit above.

I'm talking about a class feature that comes from the gods, not every situation in which the immunity applies.

As the rules say: "Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. The oracle’s curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity."

It doesn't say that "if the oracle has a pre-existing immunity, that removes the hindrance part of the curse."

doesnt matter if it doesn't say it bypasses immunities it does not bypass immunities


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
doesnt matter if it doesn't say it bypasses immunities it does not bypass immunities

Why?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
doesnt matter if it doesn't say it bypasses immunities it does not bypass immunities
Why?

because thats the whole point of immunities it makes you immune to effects and you are immune to all iterations of said effects unless an ability specifically calls out that it bypasses said immunity


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
doesnt matter if it doesn't say it bypasses immunities it does not bypass immunities
Why?
because thats the whole point of immunities it makes you immune to effects and you are immune to all iterations of said effects unless an ability specifically calls out that it bypasses said immunity

And I'm saying that the whole point of an oracle's curse is that it provides a benefit and a hindrance that can't be removed without the aid of a deity. If you believe that being immune to the hindrance does not mean the hindrance has been removed, I guess that's ok, but I tend to think that immunity to a hindrance is removing that hindrance. Which is specifically called out in the oracle curse text as something only the aid of a deity can do.

As I have said several times, this is a situation where there are two equal, but incompatible, ways of interpreting the order of how you apply qualities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Incidentally, the way I typically rule on this also allows the oracle curse's benefits to supersede innate racial features--in certain weird corner cases. For instance, androids are normally unable to benefit from morale bonuses. However, an android oracle with the legalistic curse could, if you follow my line of thinking, get that +4 morale bonus from their curse, while still being unable to benefit in other situations.

From an RP perspective, I prefer this way of thinking. It seems fitting to me that an oracle would somehow be so fundamentally different that even things that others of their type/race would have, they would not, at least in circumstances related to the curse laid upon them by the Powers That Be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
doesnt matter if it doesn't say it bypasses immunities it does not bypass immunities
Why?
because thats the whole point of immunities it makes you immune to effects and you are immune to all iterations of said effects unless an ability specifically calls out that it bypasses said immunity

And I'm saying that the whole point of an oracle's curse is that it provides a benefit and a hindrance that can't be removed without the aid of a deity. If you believe that being immune to the hindrance does not mean the hindrance has been removed, I guess that's ok, but I tend to think that immunity to a hindrance is removing that hindrance. Which is specifically called out in the oracle curse text as something only the aid of a deity can do.

As I have said several times, this is a situation where there are two equal, but incompatible, ways of interpreting the order of how you apply qualities.

the hindrance is still there you are just immune to the effects of it immunity doesn't remove it it just makes it so it doesn't effect you


Lady-J wrote:
the hindrance is still there you are just immune to the effects of it immunity doesn't remove it it just makes it so it doesn't effect you

If it doesn't affect the character under any circumstances, in what sense is it a hindrance?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the hindrance is still there you are just immune to the effects of it immunity doesn't remove it it just makes it so it doesn't effect you
If it doesn't affect the character under any circumstances, in what sense is it a hindrance?

its a hindrance as you needed to allocate resources into dealing with it resources that could have been much better spent elsewere


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the hindrance is still there you are just immune to the effects of it immunity doesn't remove it it just makes it so it doesn't effect you
If it doesn't affect the character under any circumstances, in what sense is it a hindrance?
its a hindrance as you needed to allocate resources into dealing with it resources that could have been much better spent elsewere

So choice of race is "allocating resources better spent elsewhere"?

I am unconvinced by this line of thinking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets write this up as a logical structure.

You are an elf shadowbound oracle with lightbringer.

You step outside to go get milk from the store.

From the oracle curse
You are blinded for 1 round when exposed to normal or bright light and dazzled while in such a lit area.

This is clearly a light based blindness effect.

Light bringer makes you immune to the effect.

You take no penalties and can ignore it.

The oracle cure doesnt say it bypasses immunities so it doesnt bypass immunities. Look at any curse that sickens and creature types immune to sicken. Constructs can take a level in oracle and select curses with no downside for them.

Your player can make this choice with his character and suffer no mechanical downsides from his mediocore curse. It wont unbalance the game anymore than a normal oracle.


Halek wrote:
You take no penalties and can ignore it.

So the hindrance... has been... removed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Wasting curse gives immunity to the sickened condition, and several curses use the sickened condition as their malus. Is a Dual-Cursed Oracle with Wasting immune to sickened? Both sources are curses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Halek wrote:
You take no penalties and can ignore it.
So the hindrance... has been... removed?

No. If your racial traits were suppressed or you changed races the curse would impact you. It is like a lame oracle getting a horse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Halek wrote:
You take no penalties and can ignore it.
So the hindrance... has been... removed?
No. If your racial traits were suppressed or you changed races the curse would impact you. It is like a lame oracle getting a horse.

You can kill the lame oracles horse. You can't kill the immunity. The oracle in the case of immunity to light-blindness and using the shadowbound curse permanently removes the penalties for the curse. This isn't temporarily circumventing the curse's drawback, it's removing it, which only a god can do.

Also, as a tip for the flavor of oracles, the gods purposely inflict the curse, and i'm fairly sure pharasma and shelyn can bypass your min-maxing.

Edit: Temporarily


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zennifer wrote:
Halek wrote:


No. If your racial traits were suppressed or you changed races the curse would impact you. It is like a lame oracle getting a horse.
You can kill the lame oracles horse. You can't kill the immunity. The oracle in the case of immunity to light-blindness and using the shadowbound curse permanently removes the penalties for the curse. This isn't temporarily circumventing the curse's drawback, it's removing it, which only a god can do.

Agreed. Having a horse is not a permanent, intrinsic racial quality. The horse's base movement is unaffected by the oracle's lame curse. The lame oracle's movement remains reduced, not eliminated in a permanent, intrinsic way.

And to follow up, the argument that an elf's optional immunity to light-blindness supersedes the shadowbound curse's hindrance is a specific case of the general argument that racial qualities supersede class abilities.

Which may be the case, but it is equally arguable (no one has shown me yet how it isn't equally arguable, other than just insisting that it isn't) that class abilities, in general, supersede racial qualities in the event of a conflict.

This argument seems to boil down to:

"The immunities rules say you never lose them unless explicitly stated! Immunities beat oracle curses!"
"The oracle curse rules say you never get rid of it unless the gods intervene! Oracle curses beat immunities!"

Whichever side one comes down on probably seems to one like the obvious answer and everyone else is wrong, but there really isn't any reason to pick one over the other, considering only the two specific rules in question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hushed wrote:
The Wasting curse gives immunity to the sickened condition, and several curses use the sickened condition as their malus. Is a Dual-Cursed Oracle with Wasting immune to sickened? Both sources are curses.

This is a separate, but similar "order of operations" problem.

ORDER 1: Benefits, then hindrances. In this case, the oracle receives immunity to the sickened condition first, then that is superseded by the sickened condition hindrance of the other curse.

ORDER 2: Hindrances, then benefits. In this case, the oracle gets the sickened hindrance, which is then negated by the immunity from the wasting curse.

Once again, there is no clear, unambiguous way within the rules to determine which of these two orders is the correct one. Therefore, it very much remains a decision of the GM, or between the group as a whole. I tend to go with the first one, because trying to rig the system to avoid hindrances while reaping benefits probably annoys the gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe a GM should just should stop people from finding ways to loophole something that's supposed to be a curse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Is there a statement about "order of operations" of character qualities anywhere? Because it seems like that is the issue.

I don't see how the order matters in this case. Immunities are Immunities. Paladins who are affected by a Disease at 2nd level automatically negate possession of that disease by 3rd level, because they are immune to it. It doesn't matter if I get immunity before or after I'm affected by a disease in terms of possessing the disease, (of course, ability damage prior to acquiring it still remains until healed, that's not the point;) the fact of the matter is, when I acquire the immunity to it, the disease doesn't affect me any more than it already has once I have immunity to it.

Same concept here. If I acquired some item or ability that negates light sensitivity/blindness, then I shouldn't still be affected by anything that provided those flaws anymore, since the real-world definition of immunity is to "not be affected or influenced by something," in this case, the light sensitivity/blindness that the curse provides.

While I understand it's a cheap means to circumvent something as inherently limiting as a curse, that's really only the case for this particular curse, and even if it wasn't this particular curse (as you've pointed out), being immune to the effects of a curse doesn't mean you still don't have that curse.

Also, re-read this passage here:

Oracle's Curse wrote:
The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity.

So, while you cannot remove a curse, you can certainly negate the penalties associated with that curse without some deific interference, such as with the Lightbringer racial trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
This is a separate, but similar "order of operations" problem.

There is no "order of operations" problem. Immunity is immunity. I matters not is it comes first or second. If you are on fire and you become immune to fire, the damage stops. If you're blind or poisoned and cast iron body, you gain immunity to blind and can see. Order ONLY matters in on what happened BEFORE the immunity happens. Nothing in the curses in question deal constant conditions so the immunity is in place BEFORE it happens.

quibblemuch wrote:
Once again, there is no clear, unambiguous way within the rules to determine which of these two orders is the correct one.

That's NOT true at all. You deal with it the way you would deal with ANY OTHER IMMUNITY. Iron body stops blindness: both current and future effects while in effect. You are trying to add limitations to the curse that do not exist as THAT is what is causing it to look unclear and ambiguous.

Really it's simple: treat it as if it wasn't a curse as curse has NO special rules about to: It's like any other effect. If we do it your way, changing into iron body doesn't stop you from drowning if you where drowning first...

What is sounds like to me is you'd like a house-rule that curses can't be offset. that's all fine and good but it isn't the way the game works. My lame oracle that multi-classes into barbarian offsets the -10 land speed with a +10 land speed and nothing breaks. Your confusing 'sounds cheesy' with breaking the rules.

EDIT: And most of the 'loophole' workarounds don't give you an advantage [or much of one]. Picking a race without Cha, and picking an unexciting race trait, to bypass a curse isn't OP in the least. Picking Consumed on a construct means you don't get the bonuses from leveling up the curse. The dual curse ones combine non- top tier curses and the curses negated aren't tough to not trigger in the first place. It seems like a lot of bother being put forth for something that's no where close to disruptive or overpowered.


Cavall wrote:
Maybe a GM should just should stop people from finding ways to loophole something that's supposed to be a curse.

Yeah that seems to be the answer here. It's not like the oracle gets to choose their curse - the player is being allowed to for convenience and player freedom, but in-universe the gods choose it. If the player is using that for results that don't make sense it's only appropriate for the GM to step in. Like a human using the Adopted trait to gain a Strix's flight, when something obviously nonsensical is done for power, corral your players.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You all keep going on about how the Oracle Curse is a Disadvantage. This is just a class feature, not unlike barbarian rage or a fighter's bravery. I like the Curses. If there was a feat chain to gain a curse for a non-oracle, I'd have a Curse on every character. They present only advantages to your character, and they're really fun to role play.

For example, that Tongues Curse means that the Oracle is immune to Language Dependent spells during combat (unless they actually know your selected language and are casting in it). At 10th, this get's replaced with the ability to understand any language in combat. Neither are bad abilities.

Lame is a good one too, as it merely reduces your speed by a fixed amount (10 or 5 feet) in exchange for ignoring encumberance penalties for weight. Not really any different from a PC that chooses medium armor at 1st level. And it doesn't prohibit speed increases (like barbarian fast movement). It further grants immunity to fatigue and exaustion, plus the ignoring the armor speed reduction.

I could keep going, there are very few genuinely bad oracle curses. Just recently, in PFS, my Oath against Undeath Paladin took a level of Black Blooded Oracle. She's convinced that Iomedae is preparing her for some mighty challenge involving lots negative energy wielding foes.


quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the hindrance is still there you are just immune to the effects of it immunity doesn't remove it it just makes it so it doesn't effect you
If it doesn't affect the character under any circumstances, in what sense is it a hindrance?
its a hindrance as you needed to allocate resources into dealing with it resources that could have been much better spent elsewere

So choice of race is "allocating resources better spent elsewhere"?

I am unconvinced by this line of thinking.

yes espesially since many of the races given as an example either don't get the +2 to cha, get a -2 to cha or a -2 to one of a non undead oracles main secondary stats so yes race selection is also a resource


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Zennifer wrote:
Halek wrote:


No. If your racial traits were suppressed or you changed races the curse would impact you. It is like a lame oracle getting a horse.
You can kill the lame oracles horse. You can't kill the immunity. The oracle in the case of immunity to light-blindness and using the shadowbound curse permanently removes the penalties for the curse. This isn't temporarily circumventing the curse's drawback, it's removing it, which only a god can do.

Agreed. Having a horse is not a permanent, intrinsic racial quality. The horse's base movement is unaffected by the oracle's lame curse. The lame oracle's movement remains reduced, not eliminated in a permanent, intrinsic way.

And to follow up, the argument that an elf's optional immunity to light-blindness supersedes the shadowbound curse's hindrance is a specific case of the general argument that racial qualities supersede class abilities.

Which may be the case, but it is equally arguable (no one has shown me yet how it isn't equally arguable, other than just insisting that it isn't) that class abilities, in general, supersede racial qualities in the event of a conflict.

This argument seems to boil down to:

"The immunities rules say you never lose them unless explicitly stated! Immunities beat oracle curses!"
"The oracle curse rules say you never get rid of it unless the gods intervene! Oracle curses beat immunities!"

Whichever side one comes down on probably seems to one like the obvious answer and everyone else is wrong, but there really isn't any reason to pick one over the other, considering only the two specific rules in question.

Except a witch can force a reincarnate on the oracle and oh look his race isnt permanent it can be changed.

Noone is making your second claim. The argument is the oracle curse is still their. It just doesnt impact you at all. The burned curse makes it so you cant wield 2 handed weapons. Would an oracle using a dagger be considered removing the curse? No. He is just ignoring it.

The curse is there. If the source of immunity is ever lost the oracle will suffer the curse. It isnt cured. It is just ignored.

What is your objection? How are you getting from ignored to removed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Answer this. Would casting protective penumbra temporarily negate the curse?

Scarab Sages

Halek wrote:
Answer this. Would casting protective penumbra temporarily negate the curse?

No more than never getting into combat negates the tongues curse.

But that, like the horse, is an external thing that prevents the curse from harming your activities. Not an internal ability negating the curse. Negation being preventing the curse from harming you when it should be and it is not the same as overcoming the harm from the curse.

Protective Penumbra would prevent the curses condition for harm being met. But it doesn't allow you to ignore the harm when it should be affecting you. Which is what Lightbringer would do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Oracles have played a few over the last few years. The cures at higher levels actually get useful. The question isn't removing the curse he or she has found a way to negate the penalties. Now while an interesting way of doing it, The question is why? Elves are not really geared for the class no bonus to Chr. To get Light Bringer he gives up his normal immunities and magical abilities.
After reading everyone's post I'd allow him. It isn't cheating really just a different way of nullifying a curse. I could take Lame lose ten feet, then take a level of Cleric gaining the Travel Domain and gain a ten foot enhancement bonus. The curse is still there it just doesn't affect me.

Scarab Sages

Derek Dalton wrote:

I like Oracles have played a few over the last few years. The cures at higher levels actually get useful. The question isn't removing the curse he or she has found a way to negate the penalties. Now while an interesting way of doing it, The question is why? Elves are not really geared for the class no bonus to Chr. To get Light Bringer he gives up his normal immunities and magical abilities.

After reading everyone's post I'd allow him. It isn't cheating really just a different way of nullifying a curse. I could take Lame lose ten feet, then take a level of Cleric gaining the Travel Domain and gain a ten foot enhancement bonus. The curse is still there it just doesn't affect me.

I respect your decision.

But, I do want to point out that the cleric still suffers from the curse. They are 10 ft slower than they should be. They just made the penalty meaningless. But the case of Light Bringer makes it so that they are immune to the penalty. Also, I think it might be less fun to allow it but that is just my opinion.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

There is no requirement by the rules that an Oracle suffer the drawback of their curse to enjoy the benefit. If the GM is okay with a PC using an option to avoid the penalty, then there is no problem.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
There is no requirement by the rules that an Oracle suffer the drawback of their curse to enjoy the benefit. If the GM is okay with a PC using an option to avoid the penalty, then there is no problem.

There is some argument to be made that negating the penalty(being immune to it, for instance, not making it meaningless) is a form of curing the curse. And thus the rules do say that it would have required a deity to perform the curing.

An example of this view; say there is a spell that allows you to ignore any movement penalty and it is cast on an oracle with the lame curse. The caster is not a deity and so they should still suffer the penalty for the curse even though there is a rule saying that they should remove the penalty. Since it would temporarily negate the penalty(de facto temporary cure).

But, ultimately you are correct. It is a valid interpretation to read it as you do.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If an oracle with the lame curse gets a way to permanently fly is the Oracle breaking some rules?

Scarab Sages

OilHorse wrote:
If an oracle with the lame curse gets a way to permanently fly is the Oracle breaking some rules?

Simple answer, no.

1 to 50 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Circumventing Shadowbound curse with Lightbringer? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.