The Cleric Remastered

In a short rest scenario the feat is sometimes going to save you 10 or so minutes so you don't have to refocus again or use medicine or whatever. Whether or not that' s worth a feat, I dunno I would have to see the other 4th level feats.

The other thing is that it also works when you're not in a short rest situation. Like if you're riding horseback overland, or exploring a ruin, or using some sort of victory point system to do research in a library you can heal everybody who sticks within 30' of you on top of whatever else you're doing.

Its an emanation not an aura so doesn't move with you. You can't travel around and gain the benefit you need to stay within 30ft of where the cleric was at the end of the 1minute of praying.

it's definitely something I'd recommend to any player who wants to go around doing miracles. Being able to go around healing masses of people with your deity's presence is fitting

Why would you trust that doctor when you can rely on the power of your god?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In a short rest scenario the feat is sometimes going to save you 10 or so minutes so you don't have to refocus again or use medicine or whatever. Whether or not that' s worth a feat, I dunno I would have to see the other 4th level feats.

The other thing is that it also works when you're not in a short rest situation. Like if you're riding horseback overland, or exploring a ruin, or using some sort of victory point system to do research in a library you can heal everybody who sticks within 30' of you on top of whatever else you're doing.

Its an emanation not an aura so doesn't move with you. You can't travel around and gain the benefit you need to stay within 30ft of where the cleric was at the end of the 1minute of praying.

Hmm. I always thought emanations like bless move with the originator.

Cyder wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In a short rest scenario the feat is sometimes going to save you 10 or so minutes so you don't have to refocus again or use medicine or whatever. Whether or not that' s worth a feat, I dunno I would have to see the other 4th level feats.

The other thing is that it also works when you're not in a short rest situation. Like if you're riding horseback overland, or exploring a ruin, or using some sort of victory point system to do research in a library you can heal everybody who sticks within 30' of you on top of whatever else you're doing.

Its an emanation not an aura so doesn't move with you. You can't travel around and gain the benefit you need to stay within 30ft of where the cleric was at the end of the 1minute of praying.

Hmm. I always thought emanations like bless move with the originator.

It would certainly make more sense if they did. But the existence of the Aura trait indicates otherwise.

But in either case, Sacred Ground is a Burst area.

Perhaps the Remaster has reworked 'Burst centered on you' to mean Emanation. Hopefully it will also indicate if the area follows the caster or not.

I have always played with "Emanations move with you" if it's an effect with a duration. I have not had reason to read the rules otherwise.

I have always played with "Emanations move with you" if it's an effect with a duration. I have not had reason to read the rules otherwise.

That's how I run it as well as I have no indication otherwise.

Be interesting to know what the devs think.

Another niche use for the Feat: since it has the Consecration trait, it is a completely free way to undo a Consecrate ritual that offends you.

Man, I do NOT get the point of sacred ground. I suppose it finally gives a cleric endless healing like a champion, plant Druid, and thaumaturge with chalice but, I mean, by level 4 someone usually has continual healing anyway, and champions and plant Druids get their free healing for free. Plus, hp per level? Even at level 20, that’s like, 18 uses (3 hours)to bring the Barbarian back to full.

Most GMs I know handwave healing unless there is a time crunch.

I just don’t get it. Either your GM is super stingy about healing, in which case you are just gonna heal with medicine and maybe get a slight boost from the field (cutting resting time down from maybe 3 hrs to 2 hrs) or he hand waves healing, in which case the feat is useless. Oh, and the healer animist does say better from level 1 onward (if their ability is kept as is.).

The shield thing however looks REALY good and makes me wanna get a cleric with embalazon armorments for a shield! Damn, +2 to ac and all saves AND turns some saves into crit saves? How is that on the same as a tiny bit of out-of-combat healing?

Something to think about is that it's also a source of void healing. Lay on hands, Fresh Produce, Ocean's Balm, Wholeness of Body, Thaumaturge Chalice and Hymn of Healing are Vitality healing. You have a dhampir or undead in the party and a lot of the go to free healing option aren't viable. Add Versatile Font and you have free healing no matter void or vitality: it's a versatility most options can't get. Not every group is going to have Goodberry after all.

Pretty sure that the feat's area doesn't move with the caster, otherwise they would say it's an emanation and that it would have the Aura trait.

Pretty sure that the feat's area doesn't move with the caster, otherwise they would say it's an emanation and that it would have the Aura trait.

Yeah, words like 'Ground', 'burst', 'consecration' and 'area' point at it also.

M8nd you given that we are discussing the merits of 1 specific feat which is an optional pick against a slew of strong other lvl 4 feats for the cleric I would say this is a resounding success for the remaster cleric.

M8nd you given that we are discussing the merits of 1 specific feat which is an optional pick against a slew of strong other lvl 4 feats for the cleric I would say this is a resounding success for the remaster cleric.

Just add Wisdom to the amount healed each time and it should scale just fine.

So for people who don't think Emanations move with you" my question about Sacred Ground is whether you can use it on, say, a moving ship. Does it not work at all in this instance, or can we just say we're in an inertial reference frame for these purposes so the "ship's deck" can serve as the sacred ground in question (which is something a Cleric of Besmara would prefer, to be sure.)

So for people who don't think Emanations move with you" my question about Sacred Ground is whether you can use it on, say, a moving ship. Does it not work at all in this instance, or can we just say we're in an inertial reference frame for these purposes so the "ship's deck" can serve as the sacred ground in question (which is something a Cleric of Besmara would prefer, to be sure.)

Emanations move with you, but this feat is not an emanation. It's a Burst with you as the center.

It would be no different if you cast a Wall of Fire or Fireball on your own square.

This feat doesn't need to be an emanation. The way you use it, there is no need to move. It supplements medicine for the cost of a minute of time. Medicine requires close proximity.

This feat reinforces the cleric as a the ultimate healer whether by magical or mundane means or a combination of the two.

So good gods use holy power and evil gods use unholy power? I personally don't like the term "unholy" because, well, we don't say good and ungood, lawful and unlawful, neutral and unneutral right? Wouldn't it have been better if Paizo came up with an entirely different word instead of "unholy"? for example, how about "profane"?

So good gods use holy power and evil gods use unholy power? I personally don't like the term "unholy" because, well, we don't say good and ungood, lawful and unlawful, neutral and unneutral right? Wouldn't it have been better if Paizo came up with an entirely different word instead of "unholy"? for example, how about "profane"?

Holy and unholy are proabably not the same as good and evil. It seems more like if would be along the lines of choosing between healing and harming font, and those aren't really linked to any alignment either.

But I guess we'll see tomorrow when the preview-embargo lifts and the first people get their PDFs.

So good gods use holy power and evil gods use unholy power? I personally don't like the term "unholy" because, well, we don't say good and ungood, lawful and unlawful, neutral and unneutral right? Wouldn't it have been better if Paizo came up with an entirely different word instead of "unholy"? for example, how about "profane"?

Profane means secular or non-religious, so it'd be a poor fit for "tied to the worship of evil deities". That's kind of the problem - a lot of antonyms of holy either mean "worldly" or rely on an "un-" prefix.

If you really want to get into terminology, "holy" just means something that is specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority.

Thing is, that means that "unholy" isn't necessarily defined as bad, dark, evil, negative or what have you; it's just something that isn't holy. The promiscuous bard in the party is unholy. My breakfast cereal is unholy.

For something to have a hard-coded negative connotation, we really need a term like "corrupt," "profane," or "vile."

Eh, I'm just going by the first dictionary definition. Unholy's primary definition is wicked and sinful, while profane's is secular rather than religious.

Eh, I'm just going by the first dictionary definition. Unholy's primary definition is wicked and sinful, while profane's is secular rather than religious.

Not in any of the dictionaries I've seen. If that definition shows up at all it's at least the third one down the list.

Webster gives 3 definitions
1: showing disregard for what is holy : WICKED
2: deserving of censure (an unholy alliance)
3: very unpleasant : GOD-AWFUL (an unholy mess)

Selfless and selfish don't roll off the tongue the way holy and unholy do

We do say lawful and unlawful (unlawful entry, unlawful assault etc).

I would rather they used words other holy and unholy though. Vile or corrupt instead of unholy is much more flavourful.

Maybe Sanctified instead of holy and vile instead of unholy.

A very strange interaction of the Sacred Ground feat is that if you want to use it to heal people inside a cathedral consecrated to your own god, you must either take people outside or break the cathedral's consecration.

"Selfish" is not necessarily a bad thing.

A very strange interaction of the Sacred Ground feat is that if you want to use it to heal people inside a cathedral consecrated to your own god, you must either take people outside or break the cathedral's consecration.

Unlike the cathedral's consecration, this doesn't appear to have any effective rank for a counteract check. I think the cathedral just wins, and it's up to the GM to allow it to function in a consecrated area of the same deity. But without counteract stats, I don't think this can function in another god's consecrated area.

Might be a good FAQ/errata candidate? Having a scaling counteract modifier that only suppresses other consecrations for the duration does give it another useful thing to do without just trashing a big ritual.

My understanding is that counteract effects without an explicit counteract rank default to half the level of the effect rounded up, which in this case would be half the cleric's level.

A very strange interaction of the Sacred Ground feat is that if you want to use it to heal people inside a cathedral consecrated to your own god, you must either take people outside or break the cathedral's consecration.

This was exactly my thought yesterday. And about the counter level being half your Cleric level. Idk how I'd square it in every case but I've decided at minimum if the cleric and the temple are dedicated to the same deity, that the sacred ground would simply latch onto the temple's consecration and use the area around the shrine/altar instead of the normal area.

For deconsecrating (and desecrating) shrines to enemy gods, however? That I'll still have to figure out...

Sy Kerraduess wrote:

A very strange interaction of the Sacred Ground feat is that if you want to use it to heal people inside a cathedral consecrated to your own god, you must either take people outside or break the cathedral's consecration.

Unlike the cathedral's consecration, this doesn't appear to have any effective rank for a counteract check. I think the cathedral just wins, and it's up to the GM to allow it to function in a consecrated area of the same deity. But without counteract stats, I don't think this can function in another god's consecrated area.

Might be a good FAQ/errata candidate? Having a scaling counteract modifier that only suppresses other consecrations for the duration does give it another useful thing to do without just trashing a big ritual.

If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level. Otherwise, halve its level and round up to determine its counteract level. If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level.

So the Feat is a Level 4 feat. This means it is either a Rank 2 effect (meaning it probably won't be effective against significantly higher level entities), or, if we take the final text, it would basically be a Rank equal to the character.

Hmm. I know now it is too late to change terms, but if Paizo really chose the term "vile" instead of "unholy", would its Good counterpart be "exalted", considering the name of two D&D sourcebooks, Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness?

I have a bit of a problem with the "holy/unholy" thing. In a monotheistic society (like the one most of us live in) God/Allah/Yahweh is holy, and Satan/Shaitan is unholy. Fair enough. But in a polytheistic society, the distinction doesn't quite fit. Holy means "dedicated to a religious purpose" and so things can be holy whichever of the ten thousand gods you worship. And things that are opposed to your "holy" are unholy, even if they're holy for someone else.

I guess what I'm saying is that in a monotheism the holy/unholy pairing is, or at least appears, objective, but in a polytheism it's subjective because it depends on who you worship.

Not sure what could be done about this problem. <shrug>

Hm. Further complication for monotheistic societies: Satanists. 'Nuf said. ;-)

I guess what I'm saying is that in a monotheism the holy/unholy pairing is, or at least appears, objective, but in a polytheism it's subjective because it depends on who you worship.

But that's not the case here, because these are objective, quantifiable forces. So your assumption doesn't really work. Holy and Unholy are tangible commodities in Golarion, not relativistic philosophical concepts.

But that's not the case here, because these are objective, quantifiable forces. So your assumption doesn't really work. Holy and Unholy are tangible commodities in Golarion, not relativistic philosophical concepts.

Hm. Not sure I agree with that.

I mean this isn't new, its pretty standard for this type of stuff, holy and unholy have always been the good and evil weapon enchantments for example despite there being evil gods. While I would prefer a different word than unholy it works fine. It's not like antipaladin at least.

I mean, one thing that's clear is that the Holy deities generally are never enemies with each other. Like Torag, Kurgess, and Desna probably aren't going to hang out much. But they all would trust each other before they would trust Asmodeus, Droskar, or Gyronna.

Hmm. I know now it is too late to change terms, but if Paizo really chose the term "vile" instead of "unholy", would its Good counterpart be "exalted", considering the name of two D&D sourcebooks, Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness?

This is actually a good argument to not use Vile and Exalted.

IIRC Vile damage was actually a thing in 3.5.

Squiggit wrote:

But that's not the case here, because these are objective, quantifiable forces. So your assumption doesn't really work. Holy and Unholy are tangible commodities in Golarion, not relativistic philosophical concepts.

Hm. Not sure I agree with that.

Holy/Unholy is the Good/Evil axis. Since the outer planes and the deities have not changed, it is still there.

It is exactly the Celestials and Fiends classification.

But I guess we'll see tomorrow when the preview-embargo lifts and the first people get their PDFs.

Not to be too terribly excited about things, but is it confirmed that tomorrow will be the day? I'm a new subscriber starting in the Remaster.

[Not to be too terribly excited about things, but is it confirmed that tomorrow will be the day? I'm a new subscriber starting in the Remaster.

Getting your PDF early is not a subscriber perk.

Subscribers get their PDFs on the day that their physical products are shipped.

Usually that is before the street/release date for the product, but not always. If, for some reason, your shipment is delayed past the official release date, your PDFs will also be delayed.

That has only happened to me twice in all the years, but it has happened.

I guess what I'm saying is that in a monotheism the holy/unholy pairing is, or at least appears, objective, but in a polytheism it's subjective because it depends on who you worship.

My headcannon is going to be that Asmodeus specifically started using Unholy as a phrase to describe the antithesis of Holy energy during the War in Heaven because he was just that kind of contrary guy. It clearly isn't the same energy that Heaven uses and he'll be blessed before he calls it the same thing.

It didn't take long to stick and all the fiendish/lower planes started using it.

Getting your PDF early is not a subscriber perk.

Subscribers get their PDFs on the day that their physical products are shipped.

I know, I've just heard a few places that the shipping day is usually two weeks before the street day, so I was kind of expecting a possible Wednesday, but Monday would be nice too.

I have a bit of a problem with the "holy/unholy" thing. In a monotheistic society (like the one most of us live in) God/Allah/Yahweh is holy, and Satan/Shaitan is unholy. Fair enough. But in a polytheistic society, the distinction doesn't quite fit. Holy means "dedicated to a religious purpose" and so things can be holy whichever of the ten thousand gods you worship. And things that are opposed to your "holy" are unholy, even if they're holy for someone else.

I guess what I'm saying is that in a monotheism the holy/unholy pairing is, or at least appears, objective, but in a polytheism it's subjective because it depends on who you worship.

Not sure what could be done about this problem. <shrug>

Hm. Further complication for monotheistic societies: Satanists. 'Nuf said. ;-)

Real-life ancient polytheism doesn't actually fit most clerics anyway, though. Most pathfinder deities have definitive holy books - borrowed from monotheism (Bible, Quran, and Avesta), there's actually no such thing for Odin/Zeus/whoever (no, Hesiod and the Eddas do not count, they're not the end-all-be-all of their polytheistic religions in anything like the way Desna or Torag's holy books are). Likewise, Pan or Thor or whoever doesn't always have strict edicts or anathemas. Sure, Zeus advocates against eating people...and then eats his own girlfriend, Metis. And punishes infidelity while having numerous affairs. Ancient polytheistic moral compasses are flexible and can often boil down to "the gods approve of what I did, because I killed everyone who said otherwise and I haven't died of disease yet."

What "offends the gods" in most real-life polytheistic religions is, as is the case in religion generally, what's offensive to that religion's society at the time. This is how you get human sacrifice in almost ALL polytheistic religions in antiquity...but later on the Romans, Greeks, and Vedic religions attacked the Celts, Gauls, and others as being barbaric for doing so. Standards change, and when your civilization isn't living hand-to-mouth in a cold cave, you can afford to turn your nose up at the desperate efforts of starving people to appease the forces of nature.

Not that the same can't be said of monotheistic real-life religions, but that's another hornet's nest to throw rocks at another day.

I know, I've just heard a few places that the shipping day is usually two weeks before the street day

Shipping is a process, not a "day".

For example, the November thread shows that shipping will occur between Oct 30 and Nov 9.
November Physical Product thread

If you haven't received your shipping notice by Nov 9, then you can contact customer service to see what has happened. Updates about shipping issues are also posted in that thread.

So the actual answer to my question was, "10/30 is the earliest estimate, but it could be as late as the 11/9 with what we know now" instead of all the other stuff.

The November Physical Product thread was actually helpful though, thank you for that bit.

Blave wrote:

But I guess we'll see tomorrow when the preview-embargo lifts and the first people get their PDFs.

Not to be too terribly excited about things, but is it confirmed that tomorrow will be the day? I'm a new subscriber starting in the Remaster.

Aaron mentioned two weeks ago that they aim to start shipping 10/30 and that the preview-embargo will will lift on the same day.

I know of at least two reviewers who have publicly confirmed to have their copies already and one of them (Roll for Combat) has a Remaster Overview stream today at 3pm eastern (today as in 10/30 in my time zone).

So I think it's save to assume that shipping will start today and we'll see the first AMAs pop up here, on reddit and various community discords to provide juicy information even to those who don't have a subscription or simply don't get their PDF that early.

... I don't think I understand the antipathy toward 'unholy'. I find 'vile' a far less natural sounding in context--rather feels like I might as well say it's 'bad damage' as that point. Describing the opposite of holy as unholy is actually the most common way I hear it said, so comparisons to non-words like 'ungood'.

My gutfeel for a word that rings right would be 'profane'... although it would be strange for the trait meaning 'sanctified to evil' to be a word that means 'unsanctified'. True, 'unholy' also sits halfway in this boat, but in my experience unholy very much more carries connotations of wickedness and sin than it does of absent religiosity.

(it is no small wonder this problem arises when this language seems to have much more use for antonyms which mean "sacred" and "not sacred" rather than pairs that mean "divinely good" and "divinely evil" - except in the huge overlap where the 'not sacred' words are also used to mean 'evil' much in the same way many of our words for "bad/evil" come from "common/not noble"

...

On that note, incidentally,

Aenigma wrote:

So good gods use holy power and evil gods use unholy power? I personally don't like the term "unholy" because, well, we don't say good and ungood, lawful and unlawful, neutral and unneutral right? Wouldn't it have been better if Paizo came up with an entirely different word instead of "unholy"? for example, how about "profane"?

Holy and unholy are probably not the same as good and evil. It seems more like if would be along the lines of choosing between healing and harming font, and those aren't really linked to any alignment either.

This actually seems to be the opposite of my understanding, so far. We've seen from the previews that the holy trait does indicate a commitment to altruism and other synonyms for what we used to call 'good'. Certainly sanctification is not identical to the good/evil alignment categories we used to use because only certain divine characters seem to be able to draw holy or unholy power in these cases, but we do know that doing so represents joining the cosmic war between good and evil on one or the other side.

But it is as you say, we'll probably see tomorrow, or if not, very soon indeed.

instead of all the other stuff.

It's a good idea not to leave erroneous assumptions lying around the forums where others can trip over them.

Man, I do NOT get the point of sacred ground.

The point is that it partially replaces Ward Medic.

You were just in a fight. Frank the Fighter stood up front and took most of the damage, and is down 60 hp. Robert the Rogue and Wanda the Wizard took some incidental damage during the fight and are down about 10 hp each.

So you use Sacred Ground and then get to work patching up Frank, and rely on Sacred Ground's healing to top up Robert and Wanda.

Is that super useful? Perhaps not. But it's certainly a niche for it.