|
I thought I'd garner some other opinions on this. Is Searing Light a positive energy effect? There is no fire descriptor. The description states "Focusing divine power like a ray of the sun..." Sounds like positive energy.
It will probably be a matter of some importance for my next session as there will be quite a number of incorporeal foes including some undead but also shadow demons (book of vile darkness). Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
Hrmm... there is nothing in the description that specifically says anything about positive energy, however the effect is greater against undead. I think I would rule this is a light spell and not positive energy.
Sean Mahoney
I did just the opposite.
Positive energy, negative energy, and force effects are the only type of spells that can affect incorporeal targets 100% of the time. Unfortunately, there are no positive energy or negative energy descriptors.
Cure wound spells channel positive energy, but require a touch attack. So is there a miss chance or not? Also, there are few cleric spells with the force descriptor. As a result, I tend to throw the cleric a bone on a few spells that seem to imply that they use positive energy.
|
|
I have to side with Sean on this. This spell can be used by evil casters as well. It even says in the SRD, "Focusing divine power like a ray of the sun, you project a blast of light from your open palm." It is light. Its NOT like turning undead which is a positive energy effect.
It STILL requires a miss chance with things like shadows and wraiths, while turning does NOT require the miss chance. I guess by leaving clerics out of the "force spells", they made up for it with turning.
Cure wound spells channel positive energy, but require a touch attack. So is there a miss chance or not?
No, because they channel positive energy.
I have to side with Sean on this. This spell can be used by evil casters as well.
That's utterly irrelevant. Evil casters (even evil clerics) can also use cure spells, which channel positive energy. So the fact that searing light can be used by evil casters tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is a positive energy effect.
That having been said, while I think it should be a positive energy spell, there is really nothing in the spell description to support that interpretation.
|
|
Thanks for the replies. Yeah I would have to concur there isn't anything in the spell description that indicates positive energy. I never really though of light as an energy type for damage though but looking over it again that is what the description states. Though it does beggar the question does light damage ignore the miss chance for incorporeality? Given light is incorporeal (assuming the damage comes from the illumination rather than heat) that would be plausible but it doesn't match the conditions set out by the Incorporeal trait description.... Ahh vagaries of rules...
|
|
Cure wound spells channel positive energy, but require a touch attack. So is there a miss chance or not?No, because they channel positive energy.
I have to side with Sean on this. This spell can be used by evil casters as well.That's utterly irrelevant. Evil casters (even evil clerics) can also use cure spells, which channel positive energy. So the fact that searing light can be used by evil casters tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is a positive energy effect.
That having been said, while I think it should be a positive energy spell, there is really nothing in the spell description to support that interpretation.
Evil clerics can NOT use Turn Undead which requires POSITIVE ENERGY to flow through their body. They can only rebuke or command.
You may think that it should be a positive energy spell if you want, nobody is stopping you. :)
ONLY force effects AND turn undead IGNORE miss chance incorp. creatures.
(assuming the damage comes from the illumination rather than heat) that would be plausible but it doesn't match the conditions set out by the Incorporeal trait description.... Ahh vagaries of rules...
You can't really start going down the road of what the damage from light comes from (ie heat vs. light) since if you break things down with real world physics the different types of energies just don't make sense. For example fire and lightning can both damage through heat... sure acid is different, but lightning can also mess with subatomic structures and such too... just isn't worth going there...
Anyway, more to the point at hand, it seems like this spell should have the light descriptor.
Sean Mahoney
Cure wound spells channel positive energy, but require a touch attack. So is there a miss chance or not?No, because they channel positive energy.
I have to side with Sean on this. This spell can be used by evil casters as well.That's utterly irrelevant. Evil casters (even evil clerics) can also use cure spells, which channel positive energy. So the fact that searing light can be used by evil casters tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is a positive energy effect.
That having been said, while I think it should be a positive energy spell, there is really nothing in the spell description to support that interpretation.
Evil clerics can NOT use Turn Undead which requires POSITIVE ENERGY to flow through their body. They can only rebuke or command.
You may think that it should be a positive energy spell if you want, nobody is stopping you. :)
ONLY force effects AND turn undead IGNORE miss chance incorp. creatures.
Not trying to be beligerent here, but that's not Vegepymgy's point. Evil clerics can still use cure spells. Cure spells are postive energy. Thus, though they cannot channel positive energy in such a way to turn undead, they can still utilize it. Thus, the fact that evil clerics can cast searing light doesn't shed any light (pun intended) on the issue.
|
|
(assuming the damage comes from the illumination rather than heat) that would be plausible but it doesn't match the conditions set out by the Incorporeal trait description.... Ahh vagaries of rules...You can't really start going down the road of what the damage from light comes from (ie heat vs. light) since if you break things down with real world physics the different types of energies just don't make sense. For example fire and lightning can both damage through heat... sure acid is different, but lightning can also mess with subatomic structures and such too... just isn't worth going there...
Anyway, more to the point at hand, it seems like this spell should have the light descriptor.
Sean Mahoney
D&D and real world physics? Best not to open that Pandora's box. I was merely musing aloud. I'll slap a light descriptor on the spell, it still suffers the incorporeal miss chance and the cleric will just have to live with it. Thanks for the thoughts.
|
|
Cure wound spells channel positive energy, but require a touch attack. So is there a miss chance or not?No, because they channel positive energy.
That is a good point. I was thinking it would but I guess the logic is your hand is radiating the energy type so ergo you get contact.
Came across this on WotC from Skip Williams' column. Thought I'd share it.
Rules of the Games: There Not There
Positive Energy: Unfortunately, the game has no positive energy descriptor, so you have to study a spell or effect's description to find out if it involves positive energy. The cleric's ability to turn undead creatures is a positive energy effect. The various cure spells also involve positive energy; however, to deliver a cure spell you must touch a creature and your touch is not a positive energy effect. If you're corporeal, your touch attack has a 50% miss chance and if you fail that chance, your touch attack misses and you don't deliver the spell (but you're still holding the charge as noted on page 176 of the Player's Handbook). If you pass the miss chance, you make a melee touch attack against the incorporeal creature and, if you hit, you deliver the spell. The rules don't say so, but you use the same procedure for any other touch range spell. If your touch attack avoids the miss chance, a successful hit delivers the spell to an incorporeal recipient, even if the spell is not a positive energy effect.
Mass versions of cure spells, such as mass cure light wounds, that deliver positive energy over a distance, don't have a miss chance against incorporeal creatures.
From the SRD:
Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons ). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.
I agree that turn and rebuke use positive and negative energy. The problem crops up with spell descriptions.
From the SRD on Cure Light Wounds:
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.
A few other spells scattered about the various books have similiar language.
As to the reason for my ruling on searing light, my current AoW campaing has no claric. Instead an archavist (from Heroes of Horror) is the main divine caster. The character need something since the party lacked turning. Also, some high level undead have so many HD that turning is nearly impossible (the Banshee from the MM2 comes to mind).
|
|
From the SRD:
Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons ). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.
I agree that turn and rebuke use positive and negative energy. The problem crops up with spell descriptions.
From the SRD on Cure Light Wounds:
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.A few other spells scattered about the various books have similiar language.
As to the reason for my ruling on searing light, my current AoW campaing has no claric. Instead an archavist (from Heroes of Horror) is the main divine caster. The character need something since the party lacked turning. Also, some high level undead have so many HD that turning is nearly impossible (the Banshee from the MM2 comes to mind).
You must use a different SRD than me, because the one I use says nothing about positive energy. See below.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#incorporeality
Dang I wish I knew how to link stuff
The text comes from the downloaded SRD from WOTC's website. It does match up with the text from the Monster Manual.
link.
Thanks for the link.
My work blocks nearly every gaming related site except for Paizo (I have a copy of the SRD on my computer at work).
Now that I am home and can check the Hypertext d20 SRD, I find the same language, specifically the fourth sentence, first paragraph.
"Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons)."
Of course that still does not shed light (pardon the pun) on searing light itself.
The only update the Rules Compendium has is that non-damaging effects that are not limited to corporeal creatures can affect incorporeal creatures. In other words, a ghost can be dominated bt dominate monster.
I guess if you go by the RAW, searing light would have the miss chance.
The only update the Rules Compendium has is that non-damaging effects that are not limited to corporeal creatures can affect incorporeal creatures. In other words, a ghost can be dominated bt dominate monster.
well other then the fact that undead are immune to mind-affecting effects...
well other then the fact that undead are immune to mind-affecting effects...
The only update the Rules Compendium has is that non-damaging effects that are not limited to corporeal creatures can affect incorporeal creatures. In other words, a ghost can be dominated bt dominate monster.
Eh, you and your logic. :)