FAQ Attack!

If your wording addressed it, then I wouldn't be pointing out it doesn't.

I've been around the rules boards (for this and other games) to know that isn't true! ;)

effects (which by the way, is a specific game term)

Even if I accept for a moment your premise that it's a specific game term (which is debatable), its definition does NOT exclude targeting - which it would have to in order for your position to be valid.

EDIT: For instance, half-elves are treated as both human and elf for "effects" related to race. That includes targeting.

In the same way, my proposed wording would treat NEA creatures as undead for "effects" utilizing pos/neg energy to heal/inflict damage. That includes targeting. Your belief that "effect" only refers to post-targeting results is not supported in the rules (at least, not that I've found - feel free to back yourself up).

No offense Jiggy, but you are wrong. If your wording addressed it, then I wouldn't be pointing out it doesn't. Saying that they are treated as undead for effects (which by the way, is a specific game term) is not the same as saying they are the treated as undead for targeting.

Fair enough. I checked and you can not be target by effects so we need something that included effects and targeting.

The creature is treated as undead for the purposes of effects, or any situation when it is targeted that uses positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

If you want to take it farther you can say:

The creature is treated as undead for the purposes of effects, areas that include it, or any ability that targets it that uses positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

The above entails all the ways of targeting a creature, and they are all game terms.

I checked and you can not be target by effects so we need something that included effects and targeting.

Reference? I'd like to compare it to my edit above.

EDIT:

The DC of this save is the same as the effect that caused the negative levels.

Here we have an "effect" that causes the final result.

EDIT2: Continuing my search for the word "effect" in the Glossary, I've found additional instances of an "effect" causing a result.

EDIT3: And in all of the Glossary and the Getting Started chapter, there is no entry for "effect" as a game term. So where are you getting the idea that "effect" can only refer to the final results of things and not for the entirety of an ability?

Here's an idea that might appease mdt's thinking without adding really cumbersome additional phrasing to the text:

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of spells or abilities that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

Would that be more satisfactory? If there's another category of <insert word other than "effect"> that needs to be covered, it could be changed to "spells, abilities and XXXXX".

Still reads smoother than some of the proposed alternatives while leaving even less room to invent a targeting issue.

Thoughts?

It is in the magic section under Aiming a Spell which goes into more detail:
Here are examples:
You have targets-spell like magic missile or charm person
You have effects-things like rays
You have area-AoE(fireball) and Lines(lightening bolt)

Here's an idea that might appease mdt's thinking without adding really cumbersome additional phrasing to the text:

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of spells or abilities that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

Would that be more satisfactory? If there's another category of <insert word other than "effect"> that needs to be covered, it could be changed to "spells, abilities and XXXXX".

Still reads smoother than some of the proposed alternatives while leaving even less room to invent a targeting issue.

Thoughts?

I like this one also.

PS:I do not envy game designers.

It is in the magic section under Aiming a Spell which goes into more detail:

Here are examples:
You have targets-spell like magic missile or charm person
You have effects-things like rays
You have area-AoE(fireball) and Lines(lightening bolt)

Concerro, that's the entry for the "effects" section of spell descriptions (note that it's under that heading). There's also an "effect" entry in the Glossary which refers to that part of an affliction's stat block. Neither is defining the word; they're telling you what's under that label.

Having an entry does not make something a "game term" when it's under a larger heading and refers to a field of the same name in a stat block.

Also, see my multiple edits, above.

When you look at the spells in the book sometimes they have effect instead of target as an example. That is what I think MDT was referring to.

Example

Scorching Ray

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Effect one or more rays[/b]

Phantasmal Killer

School illusion (phantasm) [fear, mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 4

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Target one living creature

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)

Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)

Area 20-ft.-radius spread

edit:I think the version on the previous page was good enough, but MDT's use of effect as a game term reminds of the levels vs levels vs levels thing that gets brought up. Your last wording of -->"The creature is treated as undead for purposes of spells or abilities that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage." should be good enough though.

The magic chapter also describes spells with durations of instantaneous (such as fireball) as having "instantaneous effects".

The same chapter, under the Scrying school, makes reference to "spells or effects that target you". So now we have the Core Rules stating that an effect can target you. Kind of shuts down mdt's position, doesn't it?

Under the Polymorph school, there's the phrase "activate a polymorph effect". So now an "effect" is something you can activate. Am I supposed to believe that you target before you activate? Indeed not, because under Casting Time in the same chapter, it says "You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect".

Under Aiming a Spell, we have the phrase "make choices about... where an effect is to originate". So the effect is the thing that originates from a location (such as from the cleric's body), not the result of it.

It goes on and on - the term "effect" having variable meaning and often referring to an entire magical or mundane... thing.

But I really like my second one in this post: it flat-out refers to "effects that target you". The effect can do the targeting.

Man, when you read things like this, sometimes you can understand why more FAQ's, even for "simple" things are not done faster.

Boy-oh-boy. When I was writing game stuff, there wasn't all this instant feedback, once it got by your little playtest group you were out of the woods.

It took a 4 man committee of gamers to find a way to say dhampir are treated like undead. The next time someone tried to rush a dev to answer a question I may just have to point them here.

I know! The devs don't get enough respect for their work. I can't stand when threads pop up in Rules Questions with titles like "Official Dev Response Needed" and such. Ugh.

That's why I put so much effort into it. I wanna help them out.

This may not get seen, after the undead brawl, but:

A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster.

So does this mean the folks who say you have to choose a body part to keep the charge in are right? Or maybe just a slip and the 'hand' part was a mistake?

For example, Orc Guy casts a touch spell, tries to touch something, and misses. So now instead of just "holding the charge" he's "holding the charge in his hand" which means he can't then choose to make a normal attack with a natural weapon to deal damage and discharge the spell, unless that natural weapon is his hand (and not, say, his bite).

Whereas, before this FAQ, it never said the charge was held in any particular place, which is why you could go between touches, bites, and unarmed strikes, until one finally hits.

Holding the charge: "Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge... If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges."

Granted it doesn't say hand, but it does say that if you touch anything, the "held" spell is expelled. So if your going to say he is holding the charge in his mouth, better not have a helmet, in his knee or foot, better not be wearing cloths.

In 3E, there where a few spells and Feats and things that specifically let you hold a second "held" spell in your other hand or similar body part.

@SKR

Thanks Sean for this blog post, another feather in the cap for Paizo's proactive development team. Informative and I appreciate the way you're actively involving yourself in the further discussion of the ideas resulting in the post.

That being said, I agree with Grick's idea that delinating the hand/limb the touch spell resides in may be a bigger change than intended (although perhaps it is warranted, unsure) so like always these things seem to get tricky.

But, I have great faith that you will continue to monitor this issue and if the need arises, modifications to the FAQ will be made. However, this does allow for certain parts of the body touch things without triggering the spells.

@Beckett
However, your touch spell triggering based on the clothing you're already wearing seems a bit odd... oh noes.. my chill touch just blasted my gloves/gauntlets?

This is perhaps how the strict as written rules read, but it really makes little sense to me if you're having to take into account clothing and other small factors.

This may not get seen, after the undead brawl, but:

SKR wrote:

A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster.

So does this mean the folks who say you have to choose a body part to keep the charge in are right? Or maybe just a slip and the 'hand' part was a mistake?

For example, Orc Guy casts a touch spell, tries to touch something, and misses. So now instead of just "holding the charge" he's "holding the charge in his hand" which means he can't then choose to make a normal attack with a natural weapon to deal damage and discharge the spell, unless that natural weapon is his hand (and not, say, his bite).

Whereas, before this FAQ, it never said the charge was held in any particular place, which is why you could go between touches, bites, and unarmed strikes, until one finally hits.

Holding the charge: "Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge... If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges."

I would rule that the most relevant text is "just like a normal spellcaster", in the meaning that it does not change the previously existing rules for holding a charge in any way.

FAQ Entry:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

This is, honestly, a horrible rewriting of the ability. Truly horrible.

It makes the original version look like it is clear as crystal, and makes negative energy affinity something that no longer counts as a defensive ability, but purely a negative to the creature.

Maybe this should have been how it reads:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but takes damage from positive energy and heals from negative energy. The energy still has to target the correct creature type, living, to affect a creature with Negative Energy Affinity. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Yes, please, spell it out much clearer.

And, to be honest, I don't understand. Dhampyr are LIVING creatures, not Undead.

.

In this case, just look at it from the other side, checking what the channel is intended to do.

Both positive and negative energy can be channeled to harm or to heal.
Once the cleric has declared his intention (to heal or to harm), everything in the area will be affected as designed.

Channeling positive to heal? Everyone who can be healed by positive energy will be affected, and heals. Undead, as well as Dhampirs receive no effect, as positive energy cannot heal them.

Channeling positive to harm? Everyone who can be harmed by positive energy will receive damage. Undead, as well as Dhampirs are on the receiving end of some ouchies.

kinevon wrote:

Yes, please, spell it out much clearer.

And, to be honest, I don't understand. Dhampyr are LIVING creatures, not Undead.

.

In this case, just look at it from the other side, checking what the channel is intended to do.

Both positive and negative energy can be channeled to harm or to heal.
Once the cleric has declared his intention (to heal or to harm), everything in the area will be affected as designed.

Channeling positive to heal? Everyone who can be healed by positive energy will be affected, and heals. Undead, as well as Dhampirs receive no effect, as positive energy cannot heal them.

Channeling positive to harm? Everyone who can be harmed by positive energy will receive damage. Undead, as well as Dhampirs are on the receiving end of some ouchies.

Not last time I checked.

Don't you channel energy toi affect living or affect undead, not to heal or harm?

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, positive energy to affect living would heal most living creatures, but harm living creatures that have negatiove energy affinity.

Negative energy to affect living creatures would harm most living creatures, but heal those with negative energy affinity.

At least, intuitively, that is how it seems like it should work to me...

From what you are saying , it is not a choice to affect living or undead, but a choice as to heal or harm with the channel, even though the Core Rulebook says it is a choice as to affect living or undead. Correct?

Maybe that should be errated/updated to correspond with the negative energy affinity change, otherwise, people like me, who have read that section of the Core Rulebook, will continue to get confused.

kinevon wrote:

Yes, please, spell it out much clearer.

And, to be honest, I don't understand. Dhampyr are LIVING creatures, not Undead.

.

In this case, just look at it from the other side, checking what the channel is intended to do.

Both positive and negative energy can be channeled to harm or to heal.
Once the cleric has declared his intention (to heal or to harm), everything in the area will be affected as designed.

Channeling positive to heal? Everyone who can be healed by positive energy will be affected, and heals. Undead, as well as Dhampirs receive no effect, as positive energy cannot heal them.

Channeling positive to harm? Everyone who can be harmed by positive energy will receive damage. Undead, as well as Dhampirs are on the receiving end of some ouchies.

Not last time I checked.

Don't you channel energy to affect living or affect undead, not to heal or harm?

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, positive energy to affect living would heal most living creatures, but harm living creatures that have negatiove energy affinity.

Negative energy to affect living creatures would harm most living creatures, but heal those with negative energy affinity.

At least, intuitively, that is how it seems like it should work to me...

From what you are saying, it is no longer a choice to affect living or undead, but a choice as to heal or harm with the channel, even though the Core Rulebook says it is a choice as to affect living or undead. Correct?

Maybe that should be errated/updated to correspond with the negative energy affinity change, otherwise, people like me, who have read that section of the Core Rulebook, will continue to get confused.