FAQ Attack!

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.

I believe we're also changing it like this (new/revised text in bold):

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

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.

That makes no sense, both spells can only be targeted on undead.

School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect ray
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You direct a ray of positive energy. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit, and if the ray hits an undead creature, it deals 1d6 points of damage to it.

The part about 'if the ray hits an undead creature' is because it's a targeted spell. It says nothing about what happens if it targets a living creature. Either this affects dhampirs and so does command undead or neither do.

Just a note, Life Drinker still affects dhampir.

I mean, there's that awkward thing where they wouldn't know when to stop swinging, lest they receive more negative levels than HD. But they are immune to the effects of negative levels, whereas undead are immune to them period (and not as a function of life drinker).

Jeremiziah wrote:

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.

I believe we're also changing it like this (new/revised text in bold):

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Shouldn't 'ranged attack' be in there somewhere? Spells are ranged attacks (or can be, especially AOE ones). Seems like the archer still has to race up and stab you with an arrow.

Just a note, Life Drinker still affects dhampir.

I mean, there's that awkward thing where they wouldn't know when to stop swinging, lest they receive more negative levels than HD. But they are immune to the effects of negative levels, whereas undead are immune to them period (and not as a function of life drinker).

We're back to the 'fuzzy wording' again. The clarification was, if it specifically calls them out in the effect as having different effects. Life Drinker specifically calls out that undead are not affected by it, so...

He/She's right.

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

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Jeremiziah wrote:

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.

I believe we're also changing it like this (new/revised text in bold):

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Shouldn't 'ranged attack' be in there somewhere? Spells are ranged attacks (or can be, especially AOE ones). Seems like the archer still has to race up and stab you with an arrow.

Right, I think "melee" in the 2nd sentence was meant to be removed.

Although I think it should also include supernatural abilities and SLAs and whatever.

"Attempts to deal damage to"? :)

Also, Life Drinker's text about undead is totally fluff. The reason undead use it is because they are immune to negative levels. It's not intrinsic to the item.

I am going to back away from the disrupt undead discussion because I confused myself. I remember at one point thinking "man, disrupt undead makes it super easy to kill a dhampir now!".

Also, here's a question I've been asking myself frequently the past hour:

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

Gluttony wrote:

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?

That they were targeted as living and affected as undead.

So cleric channels +ive to heal the party: dhampir PC gets hurt while the rest are healed, cleric channels +ive to harm undead: dhampir PC isn't targeted because he is, as per the rules, living.

And likewise cleric channels -ive to heal undead: dhampir isn't targeted due to being living, cleric channels -ive to harm living: dhampir is healed while the rest are hurt.

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". :)

Looking at some of these examples, I'm thinking the NEA does need to be revised again and just limited to pos/neg energy effects healing and harming the creature. I was hoping we could stick with the looser interpretation, but unfortunately the legacy of 12 years of 3E products not written with dhampirs/NEA is going to cause too many problems.

Also, here's a question I've been asking myself frequently the past hour: why is there a spell and feat named Command Undead? :(

Related question: why do command undead and the Command Undead feat not work the same way? The feat works like control undead (and to top it all of, that's an arcane spell that normal clerics can't get). Brain hurts.

Also, here's a question I've been asking myself frequently the past hour:

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

Because developers failed to invent a new name for it? ;)

EDIT: Damn, Sean, you are just lurking here to ninja me! ;)

Also, instead of errating/rewriting NEA maybe start with defining positive/negative energy to be more clear AND after that rewrite NEA. Otherwise it will remain mess.

My best guess is that the high from the Dot Com clouded the mind of all the 3e :)

Also, instead of errating/rewriting NEA maybe start with defining positive/negative energy to be more clear AND after that rewrite NEA. Otherwise it will remain mess.

We can't use Bestiary 2 as the place to introduce rules revisions for the Core Rulebook. And there's no space in the Magic chapter of the Core Rulebook to talk about positive and negative energy (which aren't mentioned in that chapter at all). What I really need is a time machine so I can go back and clarify/simplify a lot of the excessively wordy language in the Core Rulebook, much of which was inherited from 3.5.

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.

Does that mean the creature is not targeted by a channel to harm/heal undead targets?

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

I'm surprised there are no clarifications concerning Pounce and iterative attacks.

Does that mean the creature is not targeted by a channel to harm/heal undead targets?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this simply means that when it comes to channels, it works like Hogarth said it did earlier:

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).

I have trouble imagining they'd go out of their way to nullify a reasonable interpretation of the rule that they supported only a few hours ago.

What I really need is...

...Pathfinder 2.0 in which you all can have the freedom to actually fix things right instead of layering band-aid on top of band-aid on top of gauze on top of dirty old layers of other bandages.

Drejk wrote:

Also, instead of errating/rewriting NEA maybe start with defining positive/negative energy to be more clear AND after that rewrite NEA. Otherwise it will remain mess.

We can't use Bestiary 2 as the place to introduce rules revisions for the Core Rulebook. And there's no space in the Magic chapter of the Core Rulebook to talk about positive and negative energy (which aren't mentioned in that chapter at all). What I really need is a time machine so I can go back and clarify/simplify a lot of the excessively wordy language in the Core Rulebook, much of which was inherited from 3.5.

Pity that this discussion hadn't flared prior to Ultimate Magic, then the clearing the matter with positive/negative energy could be done together with adding new spell descriptors. And the problem with positive/negative energy was present from early D&D. Before 3.0 wasn't so much apparent because everything was vaguely defined. Third edition introduced much more precise definitions for certain states, conditions and effect types but not every one. Positive/negative energy was too vaguely and confusingly described preventing actual use of common sense to solve the problem (despite your best wishes) because it's inconsistent in itself (for example: if positive energy harms undeads, and living creatures are powered by positive energy then why undead are not harmed by living creatures as much as they harm living ones? of course there is possible answer to this: because positive and negative energy are asymmetrical forces, but this does not match established D&D canon of positive and negative energy planes and some other aspects of positive/negative energy workings).

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.

I understand it, and you understand it - but I am afraid that another NEA interpretation spread will spawn in some time :(

(more seriously, I haven't got problems with old definition)

After looking at this one more time: forgive me for being a advocatus diaboli here but new definition can spark another problem with strict RAW reading. Now that you defined it as working only in respect of healing/harming what will be with chill touch: it is described as negative energy effect, it harms living creatures but undead it does not heal - it causes them to flee. How will dhampir/NEA creature react?

I'd wager it's because the rules on that are quite clear. But they may always change the rules and intention of it.

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

It would have been interesting to keep that in, but the new rule is simpler without it and prevents weirdness from things like brilliant energy and the mirror of opposition, so ...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

What I really need is...

...Pathfinder 2.0 in which you all can have the freedom to actually fix things right instead of layering band-aid on top of band-aid on top of gauze on top of dirty old layers of other bandages.

Where "to actually fix things right" means "do what I would do, cause I'm a pr0 designer and stuff and my ideas are the best".

Yawn.

After looking at this one more time: forgive me for being a advocatus diaboli here but new definition can spark another problem with strict RAW reading. Now that you defined it as working only in respect of healing/harming what will be with chill touch: it is described as negative energy effect, it harms living creatures but undead it does not heal - it causes them to flee. How will dhampir/NEA creature react?

NEA only affects positive energy and negative energy effects that heal or harm living/undead creatures in the manner of cure and inflict spells, heal/harm, and channel positive energy/channel negative energy. So it wouldn't affect chill touch, even though that uses negative energy (it's not a healing/harming spell).

The problem with the latest is it is still ambiguous.

If I choose to channel against undead, do I affect the NEA or not? It's still alive, so does that mean I can only target it when I target living creatures? We're right back to the original again.

Honestly, it's a lot simpler if you keep it like this :

Negative Energy Affinity : The creature is still a living creature, and is targeted as one by channel, but is affected by positive and negative energy targeted at it as if it were undead.

That means that if a channel is targeting living creatures, it affects the creature as if it were undead. If the channel is targeting undead creatures, the creature is not targeted, it's not undead.

If you want it the other way...

Negative Energy Affinity : While the creature is a living creature, it is targeted as undead by channel, and is affected by positive and negative energy targeted at it as if it were undead.

EDIT : Note that both of these would allow things like chill touch to affect the NEA as undead, but not affect things like brilliant energy or mirror of lifetrapping.

Guys, what we really need is a punnet square for this ability.

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.

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.

He/She's right.

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

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

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.

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

Yeah, I really think that's the crux of it.

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.

NEA only affects positive energy and negative energy effects that heal or harm living/undead creatures in the manner of cure and inflict spells, heal/harm, and channel positive energy/channel negative energy. So it wouldn't affect chill touch, even though that uses negative energy (it's not a healing/harming spell).

Maybe in next printing of Core Rulebook remove negative energy reference from [i]chill touch[i] as one small step of clarification of positive/negative energy for the future generations?

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>

Beckett, I commented on this in the other NEA thread: Raise dead.

Drejk wrote:

After looking at this one more time: forgive me for being a advocatus diaboli here but new definition can spark another problem with strict RAW reading. Now that you defined it as working only in respect of healing/harming what will be with chill touch: it is described as negative energy effect, it harms living creatures but undead it does not heal - it causes them to flee. How will dhampir/NEA creature react?

NEA only affects positive energy and negative energy effects that heal or harm living/undead creatures in the manner of cure and inflict spells, heal/harm, and channel positive energy/channel negative energy. So it wouldn't affect chill touch, even though that uses negative energy (it's not a healing/harming spell).

Chill touch is an awkward scenario in of itself.

To the living, it deals negative energy damage and strength damage (not counting saves and such).

To the undead, it simply panics (not counting saves and such).

That's the big question with chill touch, as to whether it:
1) Deals negative energy damage to a dhampir plus a risk of strength damage.
2) Restores hit points to a dhampir equal to the amount of negative energy damage that would be inflicted plus a risk of strength damage.
3) Simply makes the dhampir make a save to not panic.

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?

...

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) 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. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) 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. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Do the other people involved in this discussion think this sufficiently clarifies the rule?

It all depends on what your definition of the word "is", is.

This is just my opinion, but I find many of the interpretations of NEA to smack of adversarial GMing. I only know one GM who would follow the interpretation that a Dhampir can only be harmed by a channel, and that due to some wonky reading the healing effects can't ever happen to him. He's the guy who doesn't have any players willing to show up at his table.

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)."

Gluttony wrote:

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)."

Beckett outdid me on the wording... -_-

Thorough is clear in this case though. I don't see anything that could be easily misinterpreted in this version of the text.

Gluttony wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) 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. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Do the other people involved in this discussion think this sufficiently clarifies the rule?

Good enough, the biggest issue has been the targeting for Channel up til now.

I'll be house ruling it, but as far as clarity goes it's clear enough. Things like chill touch would target them and affect them as if they were undead. Disrupt Undead would not, since it's not negative energy. Brilliant Energy would remain unaffected. Life Drinker would appear to simply apply a negative level on a crit, which goes away in an hour.

Gluttony wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) 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. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Do the other people involved in this discussion think this sufficiently clarifies the rule?

this should be enough

Satisfies me.

Good enough, the biggest issue has been the targeting for Channel up til now.

Which was the completely pointless issue because channel is area effect and not targeted effect. In case of area effects "affected" is correct game term, "targeted" means something different.

mdt wrote:

Good enough, the biggest issue has been the targeting for Channel up til now.

Which was the completely pointless issue because channel is area effect and not targeted effect. In case of area effects "affected" is correct game term, "targeted" means something different.

Channel has to target either living creatures or undead, it can't target both at once.

Rather than jump to the end of a thread and flame, why don't you read it, and the threads that spawned it? They're linked up above.

The biggest issue has been whether NEA creatures are targeted as living or undead.

Or to more precisely lay it out Drejk, the question has always been 'do NEA creatures count as undead or living creatures when affected by channel energy?'

Now, on to stealth, and if HiPS gives sneak attack. (That blog has languished for a long time)

And then- what happens to a eidolons weapons when it dies or is dismissed?

Jeremiziah wrote:

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.

I believe we're also changing it like this (new/revised text in bold):

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Thanks SKR. Just don't forget. :-p And hey, thanks for your interaction with this thread. We appreciate it. I also like gluttony's rewrite, for the record. I do like Beckett's, but I think it might add 2 pages to the book, so... ;-D

People actually like what I wrote?

Wow, I don't think I've ever felt quite this useful before. ^_^