FAQ Attack!

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

What he means is that for things such as chill touch that specifically say it does certain things to undead the dhampir are to be treated as undead. For any other affect such as charm person that does not specifically call out special treatment for undead in its specific description treat the dhampir as a humanoid.

PS:If someone has already broken this down I apologize in advance. :)

edit: clarification

edit2: MDT found more examples, and good ones.

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.

Cheapy wrote:

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.

Thanks. I have an idea of what is supposed to work, but RAW does not support my theories.

It's impossible to write a rule so clearly that everyone will understand it.

The problem seems to be that the first time a new rule appears it is in the permanent medium (print) then subsequently errors are fixed in the malleable one (web). That's backwards. The first version should be in the soft form and the final version in the hard one.

Maybe have a section of the website for potential new rules, spells, feats, magic items, etc, that are being considered for publication and have the public comment on them. Include a simple voting mechanism for each and when the votes meet a threshold the item becomes a paper publishing candidate for a future book. It could be done both on a micro level (feat, spell, monster ability, etc) or on a macro level (caravan rules, trust point rules, etc).

If an item doesn't get enough votes it never sees print. This could be for lack of interest or for technical problems, but either way it works. You don't want to print something no one wants or something that no one can agree on how it should work. In the interim any other Paizo publications only use rules already in print.

This doesn't help existing problems but it could reduce future ones.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's impossible to write a rule so clearly that everyone will understand it.

The problem seems to be that the first time a new rule appears it is in the permanent medium (print) then subsequently errors are fixed in the malleable one (web). That's backwards. The first version should be in the soft form and the final version in the hard one.

Maybe have a section of the website for potential new rules, spells, feats, magic items, etc, that are being considered for publication and have the public comment on them. Include a simple voting mechanism for each and when the votes meet a threshold the item becomes a paper publishing candidate for a future book. It could be done both on a micro level (feat, spell, monster ability, etc) or on a macro level (caravan rules, trust point rules, etc).

If an item doesn't get enough votes it never sees print. This could be for lack of interest or for technical problems, but either way it works. You don't want to print something no one wants or something that no one can agree on how it should work. In the interim any other Paizo publications only use rules already in print.

This doesn't help existing problems but it could reduce future ones.

Eek. If products had to wait on a bunch of gamers who are not professional developers to see the light of day, we would never see anything =) Maybe for some things a playtest period works out, which we have seen, but I just do not see how that could feasibly be the SOP.

The way I see it, Pos/Neg energy effects have two "checkpoints" before determining their final effect:

1) Are you being affected at all? (This doesn't matter for cure/inflict spells, but matters for channel energy or for effects which can only target one type or the other.)

2) In what way are you affected? (Which type heals you and which type harms you?)

If you want NEA to affect #2 but not #1, then I recommend the following:

When a creature with Negative Energy Affinity is affected by positive or negative energy, the final effect is determined as though the creature were undead.

If you want NEA creatures to be treated like undead for #1 AND #2, then I recommend the following:

A creature with Negative Energy Affinity is treated as undead for the purposes of spells and effects that use positive or negative energy.

How do those sound?

The way I see it is...
A dhampir is healed if--
--- Negative energy in the area, targeting living or dead

A dhampir is damaged if--
--- Positive energy in the area, targeting living or dead

----

As a side note on the playtesting by post. This is a NEA is one out of many rules in this game and if it fell through the cracks it is being and has become fixed. As far as having a reliable medium to show the corrections the PRD and PDF are updated by Paizo very well. A hard cover medium can not be updated and that is an unfortunate truth. Even if all the testing in the world was done, after much hard work, a year later (this case) and issue is address and the book needs to be updated. Books are updated all the time text books and law books and unless we get a new printed edition of each bestiary every year we will just either not have any updates (soooo not wanted) or have an update and keep a note, deference a pdf or prd about the change in out hardcover.

So a dhampir gets around the 'must choose living or dead' restriction of channel energy, Souphin?

From the SRD:
"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. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric casts spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting). "

so you channel, you have one choice cause damage or heal. the "to undead" and "living" aren't actually part of the choice, its a description of the type of energy (and a good example of why passive voice is frowned upon if I understand correctly). It is a burst effect, so hits everything in the radius of the channel.

If the person chooses to heal with positive energy, and the things in the burst are of types that healing positive energy effects (the "living" descriptor) you are healed. If you are not the type healing positive energy heals (undead or NEA) you are hit by the burst, but it doesn't effect you. The opposite happens for harm in relation to the descriptors. But everyone is hit by every burst unless you you are specifically excluded via selective channeling.

Actually, I see things from the other side:

A cleric can channel to heal, or to harm. In any case, the channel affects all targets it can affect within the area.

So, channeling positive energy for healing results in healing everyone in the vicinity who can be healed by positive energy (i.e. living beings without NAE)

Channeling positive energy for harming results in dealing damage to every target in the vicinity that can be harmed by positive energy (undead and NAE creatures)

I am sure you can derive the effects of negative channeling from here.

As a result, the dhampir is lumped with the undead when looking at the results of a channel. Any channel. Which is what Sean was aiming at.

so you channel, you have one choice cause damage or heal. the "to undead" and "living" aren't actually part of the choice, its a description of the type of energy

It's actually the other way around: your only choice at the time of channeling is whom to affect (living or undead), and the healing/harming is the natural result of them being affected by the energy.

EDIT: Found the support in the Channel text (cpt_kirstov didn't quote all of it, for some reason):

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.

So a dhampir gets around the 'must choose living or dead' restriction of channel energy, Souphin?

Yes because it is living AND reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead

A cleric can channel to heal, or to harm. In any case, the channel affects all targets it can affect within the area.

Incorrect. As seen in my edit above, the rules actually say that only one type (living or undead) is affected by each channel.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

So a dhampir gets around the 'must choose living or dead' restriction of channel energy, Souphin?

Yes because it is living AND reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead

But an undead creature in the radius of a positive energy channel to heal takes no damage.

Midnight_Angel wrote:

A cleric can channel to heal, or to harm. In any case, the channel affects all targets it can affect within the area.

Incorrect. As seen in my edit above, the rules actually say that only one type (living or undead) is affected by each channel.

I known that this was play tested along time ago when pathfinder came out and there were many discussions on Energy Channeling but is it really too powerful to just have channel energy just be a blast or positive or negative energy effecting all coming from one source.

Jiggy wrote:

Midnight_Angel wrote:

A cleric can channel to heal, or to harm. In any case, the channel affects all targets it can affect within the area.

Incorrect. As seen in my edit above, the rules actually say that only one type (living or undead) is affected by each channel.

I known that this was play tested along time ago when pathfinder came out and there were many discussions on Energy Channeling but is it really too powerful to just have channel energy just be a blast or positive or negative energy effecting all coming from one source.

It might be a bit of a de-rail to talk about whether Channel Energy should be altered. In the meantime, since NEA is being changed/discussed, it's important that people understand how Channel Energy works currently, because that's what NEA will be interacting with the most.

And currently, Channel Energy affects only one type of creature each time it's activated, as stated in the rules. (Apparently lots of people stop reading after a certain number of lines...?)

...is it really too powerful to just have channel energy just be a blast or positive or negative energy effecting all coming from one source?

Yes.

Let's focus, people. Getting away from the merits/flaws of Channel Energy for a moment, the current state of it is that (despite what several people apparently think) the Channel text explicitly states that only one type of creature (living or undead) is affected by each burst, chosen at the time of Channeling.

As such, it needs to be decided by the Powers That Be whether NEA should cause a creature to be affected as though undead, or should leave that alone and merely reverse the result of having been affected.

Basically (as I said earlier, but with no response), Pos/Neg energy effects have two "checkpoints" before determining their final effect:

1) Are you being affected at all? (This doesn't matter for cure/inflict spells, but matters for Channel Energy or for effects which can only target one type or the other.)

2) In what way are you affected? (Which type heals you and which type harms you?)

If you want NEA to affect #2 but not #1, then I recommend the following:

When a creature with Negative Energy Affinity is affected by positive or negative energy, the final effect is determined as though the creature were undead.

If you want NEA creatures to be treated like undead for #1 AND #2, then I recommend the following:

A creature with Negative Energy Affinity is treated as undead for the purposes of spells and effects that use positive or negative energy.

How do those sound?

Jiggy, in response to your question I think in the case of NEA a living creature with NEA is both a living and undead target and is effected in any situation where channeling energy is used. And further more it is affected as being undead.
If I am totally then the spectrum would be that in the case of channeling even though it is alive it can only be targeted as undead, thus targeting the living when channeling omits the NEA character.

Jiggy, in response to your question I think in the case of NEA a living creature with NEA is both a living and undead target and is effected in any situation where channeling energy is used. And further more it is affected as being undead.

If I am totally then the spectrum would be that in the case of channeling even though it is alive it can only be targeted as undead, thus targeting the living when channeling omits the NEA character.

That's the million-dollar question: which channels affect the dhampir in the first place?

I don't really care too much what the answer is - I was just offering phraseology for whichever of the possibilities the devs might want it to be.

As long as we're on the topic of FAQs, I am wondering if the Alchemist / Item Creation feat issue is being looked at. It appears (from SKR and JJ's comments in the past, as well as from some AP stuff) that the intent is that they can take the item creation feats (without master craftsman). But as written, it seems like they can't. I understand that JJ was the original designer of the alchemist, but perhaps the intent changed in later iterations.

One tangentially related issue with the evidence is that at one point, Sean mentioned that they couldn't use the extracts as spells to meet prereqs, and at another JJ said they could.

I think it was for balance reasons, but I wish Clerics just did positive or negative bursts, period. Positive energy heals living and hurts undead, and vice versa. No targeting crap.

+1

I am Imagining scenarios and I see an evil cleric heal his minions and damage pcs at the same time but I can also see the party cleric turn around and heals the party and damages the necromancer's skeletons

Another +1

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

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

I think that was how it was in the beta.

Folks, suggesting we go back to how channeling was in the Beta doesn't help the discussion of NEA. We're not going to change how the channeled energy rules work and we're certainly not going to change it back to how it was in the Beta. Let's remained focused on NEA so we can make it understandable, compatible with channel energy as written, and still fit in the 3-4 lines available in the Bestiary 2 appendix.

Here's the example scenario, and how NEA is supposed to interact with channel energy.
You have a cleric PC, his dhampir buddy PC, and an enemy ghoul.
If the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead).
If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).

And here's the latest revision to NEA:
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.

Is that sufficient, or can we make the NEA wording clearer so "everyone" would interpret the example scenario correctly? I think the problem now is the word "targeted," because channel energy doesn't "target" anyone, it's an area that is tuned to either heal the living or harm undead.

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

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

PS: -1 for not changing Channel Energy

And here's the latest revision to NEA:

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.

I think this is the clearest so far.

Is that sufficient, or can we make the NEA wording clearer so "everyone" would interpret the example scenario correctly? I think the problem now is the word "targeted," because channel energy doesn't "target" anyone, it's an area that is tuned to either heal the living or harm undead.

Hmm...

Options:
1. Put the "channel targeting issue" into the FAQ.

2. Find a replacement verb for "targeted". Maybe "affected" or "interacted with"?

3. Maybe try this wording: Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is affected by positive and negative energy effects as if it were an undead creature. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

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

** spoiler omitted **

I think the issue is the length, as noted by SKR in the post above yours.

And here's the latest revision to NEA:
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.

Is that sufficient, or can we make the NEA wording clearer so "everyone" would interpret the example scenario correctly? I think the problem now is the word "targeted," because channel energy doesn't "target" anyone, it's an area that is tuned to either heal the living or harm undead.

I would just change it slightly:

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, and when targeted by, or is within an Area of Effect of, these effects, it is treated as an undead creature. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

As you said, targeting seems to cause confusion, because most people see targeting as a singling out of the target, whereas everything in an AoE is being targeted as well, just in a different way. Cure Light Wounds targets, Channel Positive Energy is AoE, both are covered. Since the text specifically says "healed", it should be clear that non-healing sources of positive or negative energy are not affected by this ability.

I like that version Enevhar. That way it covers targeting and AoE's.

I think Sean hit the nail on the head.
NEA characters are both targeted and affected as undead.

A dhampir is healed if--
--- Negative energy in the area, targeting undead

A dhampir is damaged if--
--- Positive energy in the area, targeting undead

Lastly NEA keeps the character from being targeted as a living character

In the event of AOE or single target in either situation someone is targeting a person or a type and if a NEA character is in the AOE while his type is being targeted he is affected.

I like that version Enevhar. That way it covers targeting and AoE's.

Of course, then something will come up that doesn't specifically target and isn't clearly an AoE (somehow) and it'll all be fuzzy again. ;)

Call me biased, but I like the open-endedness of my suggestion:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is affected by positive and negative energy effects as if it were an undead creature. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Unless I'm overlooking something, this answers any question you have:
"Does X affect the NEA creature?" It's affected as if it were an undead creature.
"The NEA creature is affected by Y; what's the resulting effect?" It's affected as if it were an undead creature.

And it's short and concise to boot.

That is better Jiggy. I have changed bandwagons. :)
I just remembered that I got into a debate because someone wanted to call something an aura(a specific game term) that did not have aura anywhere in the description or name. I am sure the same could happen with an AoO type effect.

That is better Jiggy. I have changed bandwagons. :)

Glad to hear it! I hope SKR likes it too, because it would be OMG SUPAR KEWL to have my suggestion used! ;)

Jiggy,

The problem I see is that they seem to want to make it more clear and specific and eliminate the vagueness, not make it more open-ended. SKR specifically put "healing" in his version and you did not, leaving it open for all sorts of interpretation.

Jiggy,

The problem I see is that they seem to want to make it more clear and specific and eliminate the vagueness, not make it more open-ended. SKR specifically put "healing" in his version and you did not, leaving it open for all sorts of interpretation.

Yay for feedback! So can you give me (or everyone, really) a specific example of how it could go wrong with my suggested wording? Because I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where that wording wouldn't answer the question.

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

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

How are you getting that from the wording I suggested?

The creature is alive but is affected by positive and negative energy effects as if it were an undead creature.

"So when I channel [TYPE] energy to [EFFECT] [CATEGORY] creatures, is the NEA creature affected?" The creature is affected as if it were an undead creature.

What's the issue?

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

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

I think you're making it harder than it is.

"I channeled to heal living creatures. What happens to the dhampir?"
He's affected as though he were an undead creature.
"Undead creatures neither heal nor receive any damage."
Exactly.

Where's the issue?

Alright, I had another wording idea a minute ago while I was in the bathroom:

Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

This removes the opportunity to accidentally add extra meaning the first half, which upon further reflection is I think where Beckett was coming from.

Thoughts on this one?

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

Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

I don't think simplicity will work here.

This version means all those unexpected affects froms spells are back, and Positive and Negative Energy effects is not specific.

Jiggy wrote:

Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

I don't think simplicity will work here.

This version means all those unexpected affects froms spells are back, and Positive and Negative Energy effects is not specific.

What are some examples? I tried to look for some earlier before I agreed with his rewording.

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

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

Why would Chill Touch be an issue. You would use the line that shows how it affect undead instead. I have that one memorized.
As for the others if they say this spell does X to undead then you apply X to the dhampir if the spell/effect specifically says it uses positive or negative energy.

I don't think raise dead calls out positive energy. If it did I overlooked it.

There are spells are can be assumed to use positive or negative energy, but if it does not say it then those spells are not intended to count toward special(not necessarily) better treatment for the dhampir.

Regardless of wording, I just want to insta-kill an undead with Raise Dead (phoenix down, anyone?) I think I have just been playing too much Final Fantasy lately. lol

Regardless of wording, I just want to insta-kill an undead with Raise Dead (phoenix down, anyone?) I think I have just been playing too much Final Fantasy lately. lol

There is no such thing as playing too much Final Fantasy. That you suggest such a thing means you need to play more Final Fantasy :)

Someone does not know the difference between complaints and trying to help Paizo write things so they are easier to interpret.

There are a number of people in this thread that don't know that difference, and some think they're helping.