[Cleric] Channel Energy - a Testamony of faith of the class feature


Playtest Reports

51 to 75 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Personally, I've never been allowed to do these types of things. The other players in my group just don't get into it, and the Dm's don't care, so they see it as a waste of good crawl-time.

I can also see some good reasons for not doing so. First, it is a very singular character activity, so there is good reason do have that done "off camera", so that its not just all about the Cleric for an hour or so.
Sencondly, a typical party does not have a single patron deity, so if this was done, there is a good chance that there would be conflict with other party members, (good natured or not) trying to show that theirs is better.
Lastly, this is one of those things where a character probably has some skill, but the player probably doesn't, so again it would probably be more fair and desirable to either do it through some roles or "off camera".


Beckett wrote:

I can also see some good reasons for not doing so. First, it is a very singular character activity, so there is good reason do have that done "off camera", so that its not just all about the Cleric for an hour or so.

Sencondly, a typical party does not have a single patron deity, so if this was done, there is a good chance that there would be conflict with other party members, (good natured or not) trying to show that theirs is better.
Lastly, this is one of those things where a character probably has some skill, but the player probably doesn't, so again it would probably be more fair and desirable to either do it through some roles or "off camera".

But...preaching is a cleric's..well..job, preachers are supposed to preach their religion (hence the term preacher). It doesn't have to be a big IG thing either, the occasional "my character spends an hour or so preaching on the streets" would be enough.

The party doesn't have the same diety? So? What would be the point of trying to convert someone who is part of the same religion?

Playing a cleric not interested in converting others is like playing a wizard who doesn't like spell-casting, a fighter who doesn't like fighting, or a bard with no musical talent.

There was a situation I had heard of a while back (though I heard of, never actually saw it IG which is a shame really, since it sounded good) of an adventuring party which struggled to enter a crypt. One of the party was captured by the intellegent undead there, so the party caleld a retreat and decided to gather supplies and buff. The area they were in was heavily populated by banites*.

When they had asked a banite preist for aid (mostly potions and a few minor buffs), he refused. They offered gold and he still refused. The party then offered instead to get on their hands and knees and beg for aid as they "are but lowly weaklings compared to the mighty and powerful Bane. Please help so that we may become stronger and hopefully earn the respect of your honourble lord".

With that, the preist helped, not because of gold or such, but because they had revered their god and implied that they intended to follow his dogma, even if only partly. This is an ideal cleric of Bane in my opinion, since he was pushing the party to follow the lifestyle promoted by his god.

*Bane is a FR god, he is an LE god of strength and tyranny. His dogma encourages those with strength to take what they want, and that anyone who is weak should try to make themselves stronger or they deserve any hardships they face.


Nero24200 wrote:
Playing a cleric not interested in converting others is like playing a wizard who doesn't like spell-casting, a fighter who doesn't like fighting, or a bard with no musical talent.

Those all sound like fun character concepts to me.

Nero24200 wrote:
But...preaching is a cleric's..well..job, preachers are supposed to preach their religion (hence the term preacher). It doesn't have to be a big IG thing either, the occasional "my character spends an hour or so preaching on the streets" would be enough.

And tending to his arms and armor is a Fighters' job. But no one really wants the player of a Fighter to role play out sharpening their sword (or whatever) every night by the camp fire.

Stealing coin is the Rogues' job, but the other players get a little miffed when their coin goes missing, particularly to another party member.
On top of all that, attempted religious conversion can be an all too real experience depending on the group and area.

Taken as a whole, it is far better for everyone involved if the Cleric doesn't speak a word of his/her religion. At least as a default.
Individual players and groups may differ.


I'm playing a cleric of Death in our current campaign. The problem is the existence of a deity who represents Life and Death already. So I avoid any form of preaching to the masses because I have no desire to convert said masses. The last thing I need is a holy war between myself and the best-established faith in the world. I tend to tread lightly around the followers of Tria as a result. When an NPC asks me who I serve, I always tell them, but I never proselytize. Makes for an interesting dynamic in the game.


Lathiira wrote:
I'm playing a cleric of Death in our current campaign. ... When an NPC asks me who I serve, I always tell them, but I never proselytize. Makes for an interesting dynamic in the game.

Seems like you could tell them at the point of a poisoned blade, or answer their question with a well-placed flame strike.

Nothing proselytizes a faith of "Death" quite like showing them first-hand.

"Here, my child, let me convert you to death, right here, on this very spot..."

Booooom!


DM_Blake wrote:
Lathiira wrote:
I'm playing a cleric of Death in our current campaign. ... When an NPC asks me who I serve, I always tell them, but I never proselytize. Makes for an interesting dynamic in the game.

Seems like you could tell them at the point of a poisoned blade, or answer their question with a well-placed flame strike.

Nothing proselytizes a faith of "Death" quite like showing them first-hand.

"Here, my child, let me convert you to death, right here, on this very spot..."

Booooom!

Until you realize that one of the precepts of the faith is that people are supposed to die in their own time. I'm not supposed to hurry them along. Of course, I've had to defend myself from time to time, which has resulted in undesirable yet regrettable casualties. But when people die in this world, they end up going to the other deity anyway. I'm the harbinger of that deity's eventual demise.


Lathiira wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Lathiira wrote:
I'm playing a cleric of Death in our current campaign. ... When an NPC asks me who I serve, I always tell them, but I never proselytize. Makes for an interesting dynamic in the game.

Seems like you could tell them at the point of a poisoned blade, or answer their question with a well-placed flame strike.

Nothing proselytizes a faith of "Death" quite like showing them first-hand.

"Here, my child, let me convert you to death, right here, on this very spot..."

Booooom!

Until you realize that one of the precepts of the faith is that people are supposed to die in their own time. I'm not supposed to hurry them along. Of course, I've had to defend myself from time to time, which has resulted in undesirable yet regrettable casualties. But when people die in this world, they end up going to the other deity anyway. I'm the harbinger of that deity's eventual demise.

Yeah, yeah.

So you say.

Still, I'm not going to ask you for a theological lesson any time soon.

At least not until I put on my asbestos suit...


A bard without musical talent? Perfectly doable. Comedy can be spoken. Speeches can be given without a theme song, despite what hollywood might want you to think.

Wizard without magical ability? Let's do it. Make him a runner. Give him a sentient Luggage. And a hat with the word Wizzard on it. That ought to sell a couple million books.

A cleric that doesn't convert? Totally! Clerics don't have to play jehovah's witnesses going door to door annoying people into their faith. Some let their deeds speek for themselves. Some just want to further their deities' and churches' direct goals.


DM_Blake wrote:


Yeah, yeah.

So you say.

Still, I'm not going to ask you for a theological lesson any time soon.

At least not until I put on my asbestos suit...

I haven't incinerated anyone in a theological discussion yet. And just because I like flamestrike and firestorm, it does not follow that I use them specifically for disputes with other theologians. I actually behave myself when dealing with other sentient creatures and I oppose the deity that believes in attaining undeath as a means of power and immortality. The life and death deity I respect greatly.


KaeYoss wrote:
A bard without musical talent? Perfectly doable. Comedy can be spoken. Speeches can be given without a theme song, despite what hollywood might want you to think.

While this may be somthing that be be done IG, I'm not a fan of this either. I'd rather bards were bards rather than just Marshals with less armour and spells.

KaeYoss wrote:
Wizard without magical ability? Let's do it. Make him a runner. Give him a sentient Luggage. And a hat with the word Wizzard on it. That ought to sell a couple million books.

And theres a reason that particular wizard was kicked out of wizards school. Wizards, by their very definintion, are people that use magic.

KaeYoss wrote:
A cleric that doesn't convert? Totally! Clerics don't have to play jehovah's witnesses going door to door annoying people into their faith. Some let their deeds speek for themselves. Some just want to further their deities' and churches' direct goals.

Theres a big difference between letting your deeds speak for themselves and activily trying to convert. If I have a PC save whe world using magic, is everyone in in the world instantly going to try and learn magic? Probably not. If I save the world with divine spells then afterwards claim that my faith in that god will keep me safe, will others, beleving my words, convert to my faith? Maybe not alot but certanly alot more than if I just "Let the deeds do the talking".

Dark Archive

Clerics are defined as fighting priests, not wandering evangelists. If one wants to make a wandering evangelist, converting the heathenry as he goes, a Divine Bard (from UA) would probably be a better class choice.

KaeYoss wrote:
A bard without musical talent? Perfectly doable. Comedy can be spoken. Speeches can be given without a theme song, despite what hollywood might want you to think.

The last two bards I grouped with (in the same party!) had Perform (oratory*) as their source of Bardic Inspiration. Rousing speeches all the way around!

*not to be confused with the also-popular Perform (oral).

My favorite ever Bard used prepared spellcasting instead of spontaneous spellcasting (spellbook, more spells known, less spells castable / day) and Perform (oratory) and called himself a Nobleman. There was nothing musical or sonic based about him. He was just an aristocratic second son who was trained in the arts of combat (fencing, etc), leadership (inspiring oratory) and a smattering of the wizardly arts, from his daddy's expensive tutors.

A Divine Bard who used Knowledge (religion) as his 'perform' skill, as he read inspiring verses from his prayerbook to rally his allies, was my second favorite. Music-based Bards are too 'niche' for my tastes.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I know we are getting off topic, but in my last two campaigns, I had a fighter that was a blacksmith and was only along to protect his friends from the village. He HATED fighting, he was just the best at it. I had a Bard who was a playwright. His skill was oratory, but he was no general. He was a story teller, and could come up with great anecdotes. My current mage get his spells from other people's souls. Not on purpose, he has no control. He never cast a spell unless he absolutely has to. As for a cleric that doesn't preach. My clerics worship the god of the inner self that believe in self awareness in introspection (The god of monks and psions). He will be happy to talk to you about faith and how you have to look inside for it, but you won't find him on a street corner.


Nero24200 wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
A bard without musical talent? Perfectly doable. Comedy can be spoken. Speeches can be given without a theme song, despite what hollywood might want you to think.
While this may be somthing that be be done IG, I'm not a fan of this either. I'd rather bards were bards rather than just Marshals with less armour and spells.

If you want to pigeonhole everything, go ahead. But don't pretend the game itself is like this.

Nero24200 wrote:


And theres a reason that particular wizard was kicked out of wizards school. Wizards, by their very definintion, are people that use magic.

What are you talking about? He's a professor!

Nero24200 wrote:


Theres a big difference between letting your deeds speak for themselves and activily trying to convert.

I know. That's my point.

Nero24200 wrote:


If I have a PC save whe world using magic, is everyone in in the world instantly going to try and learn magic? Probably not. If I save the world with divine spells then afterwards claim that my faith in that god will keep me safe, will others, beleving my words, convert to my faith? Maybe not alot but certanly alot more than if I just "Let the deeds do the talking".

That's still letting your deeds speak for yourself. It sure as hell isn't converting.


Set wrote:


The last two bards I grouped with (in the same party!) had Perform (oratory*) as their source of Bardic Inspiration. Rousing speeches all the way around!

I think some AP or other had a BBEG like that.

Set wrote:


*not to be confused with the also-popular Perform (oral).

Must.resist.urge.to.make.joke.about.this.


As far as avoiding the heal-bot route, in my party, I make them pony up the cash to make or buy a wand of cure moderate wounds- then I give the wand to the ranger. He can use it because it's on his spell list, and he's an archer type anyway- so he shoots or heals depending upon what's needed. My cleric also happens to be a melee monster, and unless its an emergency, my heals are for after the battle...unless I happen to be injured, LOL.


Set wrote:
Clerics are defined as fighting priests, not wandering evangelists. If one wants to make a wandering evangelist, converting the heathenry as he goes, a Divine Bard (from UA) would probably be a better class choice.

Define preist? Is it not someone who preaches a religion? Occsionally trying to talk about your god doesn't make you an evangelist.

KaeYoss wrote:
If you want to pigeonhole everything, go ahead. But don't pretend the game itself is like this.

This from someone content on pushing healing on the cleric? If I don't want my cleric to have healing powers I shouldn't have to.

And a bard "that plays music" isn't pidgeonedholed anymore than a bard that requires ranks in a perform skill. I just think it makes more sense for the bard to not be some sort of drill sergent, paricularly since it isn't a class with martial training (see the lack of martial weapon proficencies, armour and medium BAB).

KaeYoss wrote:
What are you talking about? He's a professor!

He was kicked out, then, after saving the discworld he was allowed back in. Besides, using discworld as a basis for defining fantasy elements is a little poor considering the primary focus of the books is comical and satire.

KaeYoss wrote:
That's still letting your deeds speak for yourself. It sure as hell isn't converting

Well I define converting as attempting to bring others to your religion, which the cleric does in my example by actually mentioning his religion. Contraty to what you may think, you don't have to go jumping from door to door trying to hand over copies of your god's bible to be able to preach, as long as you get others even just thinking about your god you're doing it right.


Nero24200 wrote:
Well I define converting as attempting to bring others to your religion, which the cleric does in my example by actually mentioning his religion. Contraty to what you may think, you don't have to go jumping from door to door trying to hand over copies of your god's bible to be able to preach, as long as you get others even just thinking about your god you're doing it right.

Maybe.

But I think there are some people, maybe deep in Afghanistan, maybe elsewhere in the Middle East, hiding in caves or dark holes in the ground, who are almost constantly thinking about a few very specific western religions, and yet these people are far, far from converted to them.

I think there are people in the Gaza Strip and surrounding lands that think daily about a particular religion. Some of these people think of it with contempt, hatred, rage, and even murderous intent. And they, too, are far, far from being converted.

No, you don't have to go door to door handing out books to convert people.

But just mentioning the name of a deity to ge tthem thinking about your god isn't doing it right either.

It's the middle ground between where conversion begins.

You have to get them evaluating your belief system. Just blurting out the name of your god won't educate the listener on the belief system. It's up to you, the would-be evangelist, to share at least the basic concepts of your belief system so the would-be convertees have something to evaluate.

But you must also get them to evaluate their own belief system. The good news is that they already know this belief system, so you won't need to, or want to, educate them further on it. The bad news is that you must know it better than they do, and know the flaws, the illogic, the chinks in their belief armor. You must drive wedges in the chinks. Get them to question things that their own priests find difficult to answer adequately. Shake their foundations.

Once they begin questioning their own beliefs and evaluating your beliefs, then you may be able to land a conversion.

You might get lucky with just half of that equation, but you'll be far more effective with both halves.

And you'll never really be successful just blurting out the name of a god or mentioning the name of a religion.

Of course, that's a real-world application of ideological proselytizing. What works for each individual player in each individual gaming group is open for much less, or much different interpretation.


DM_Blake wrote:


No, you don't have to go door to door handing out books to convert people.

But just mentioning the name of a deity to ge tthem thinking about your god isn't doing it right either.

It's the middle ground between where conversion begins.

You have to get them evaluating your belief system. Just blurting out the name of your god won't educate the listener on the belief system. It's up to you, the would-be evangelist, to share at least the basic concepts of your belief system so the would-be convertees have something to evaluate.

But you must also get them to evaluate their own belief system. The good news is that they already know this belief system, so you won't need to, or want to, educate them further on it. The bad news is that you must know it better than they do, and know the flaws, the illogic, the chinks in their belief armor. You must drive wedges in the chinks. Get them to question things that their own priests find difficult to answer adequately. Shake their foundations.

Once they begin questioning their own beliefs and evaluating your beliefs, then you...

This I agree with completely. I know that to really get people thinking about their religion you can't simply scream your god's name, or simply go around perfoming deeds without really giving anyone anything to think about with regards to your god in question.

Whilst I admit my choice of wording might not be best, I felt you best described what preaching requires, and I do feel it's somthing a cleric should do, even if, at best, it's a secondary action.

Granted, how to preach would be different for each god (A cleric who worships a god of trickery, for instance, would probably be more likey to approach like-minded indiviuals discreatly, whilst a cleric who worships a god of festivals, parties and fun might hold his own public festivial in the god's name), but nevertheless, getting others to consider their god should be somthing they try.


Nero24200 wrote:


Define preist? Is it not someone who preaches a religion?

That's a preacher. A priest just practises the religion and leads the ceremonies.

Nero24200 wrote:


KaeYoss wrote:
If you want to pigeonhole everything, go ahead. But don't pretend the game itself is like this.
This from someone content on pushing healing on the cleric?

The difference is that I don't say that clerics shouldn't get anything else.

I like clerics being good at healing, but I'm not saying that I want all clerics to forced into that position.

Nero24200 wrote:


If I don't want my cleric to have healing powers I shouldn't have to.

Get Divine feats then and use channels differently.

Or play a neutral or evil cleric.

Or just don't use the ability.

No one holds a gun to your hand and forces you to use everything your class gets.

I've done things like playing fighters that didn't use heavy armour and tower shields, as well as a large range of different martial weapons, or even 4 categories of weapons regularly.

I've played clerics who never bothered with turn undead.

I've played wizards who didn't fill their spellbooks to bursting with extra spells and changed their spell selection every day.

Nero24200 wrote:


And a bard "that plays music" isn't pidgeonedholed anymore than a bard that requires ranks in a perform skill. I just think it makes more sense for the bard to not be some sort of drill sergent, paricularly since it isn't a class with martial training (see the lack of martial weapon proficencies, armour and medium BAB).

You don't have to be good at doing something to teach something or order others doing it. So you think Klitschko's trainer could beat him in the ring?

bards can make great drill instructors. They are smart enough to remember all the stuff they have to instruct and learn didactic techniques, and charismatic enough to make others listen to them.

Nero24200 wrote:


Besides, using discworld as a basis for defining fantasy elements is a little poor considering the primary focus of the books is comical and satire.

The discworld's role makes it perfect to showcase fantasy archetypes and stereotypes.


Hey, all this talk of conversion reminds me of my favorite conversion ever.

I was playing with a new group, I joined a campaign already underway so I was the FNG. I created a svirfneblin cleric/assassin (this was back in 1st edition days) around 9th or 10th level.

I barely knew this DM, but so far he seemed like a very experienced DM, but a tad lethal - he liked killing PCs.

As a cleric, I worshipped the god of Night, whoever that was in this homebrew world

So I was sneaking into the local thieves' guild in a human city, scoping it out, thinking about taking it over becoming the new leader.

But I got caught. Seems these guys were more organized and better at combat than I had anticipated.

They were going to put me to death, when I decided a little proselytizing might save my gnomish buttocks.

So I told them I could make them more powerful than they had ever imagined.

That bought me a stay of execution.

Then I began a quick lesson about my god and how powerful he was. They already respected him, since they were all thieves and the god was the God of Night.

Then I prayed to my god to give them all a sign of the power we could bring to them, together. I prayed to him to give them all ultravision (it's what first edition D&D called Darkvision, back in the day) for a few minutes.

Now there were certainly no rules for this kind of thing. The god didn't even give his own followers or clerics ultravision. Domains and domain powers didn't exist in that version of D&D. I was totally winging it.

But the DM did it. We shut off the lanterns and my God of Night gave all these human thieves the ability, for the first time, to see clearly in the dark. And since "in the dark" is where thieves do their best work, being able to see in the dark would make them 10x better and their chosen profession.

Then the ultravision wore off and we were left in the dark.

Suddenly, there was a strangling sound nearby. Someone was dying in the darkness. When the lanterns were reignited, the guild leader lay dead on the floor and I was sworn in as the new leader.

And from that day on, my god gave me the power to grant 12 hours of ultravision to whomever I wanted, divided however I wanted (12 guys get one hour each, or 3 guys get 4 hours each, or whatever).

And I had a thieve's guild, that quickly also became a temple full of followers of the God of Night.


Preaching is an RP aspect of the game. It's not a class feature or requirement of the cleric class (nor any core class that I'm aware of). It can be an RP aspect of any class, though, really. Clerics aren't the only holy men in the game. Any character can be a holy man, regardless of class.

Not sure why that's being discussed so much, to be honest.

But giving clerics and paladins the channel energy ability (and feats that make them potent and very useful) is a good thing for our campaign. I can only speak for my gaming group. Your mileage may vary. It provides clerics with more options during combat, which is good for the cleric and good for the party. Win-win for the characters I say.

It also makes evil cleric villains all the tougher, because they have an additional aoe damage ability. Throw them amidst undead minions and they become downright nasty. Win-win for the DM I say.

Carry on!


I haven't heard about ultravision to date. Did 2e still have that? That's the earliest AD&D I played, and I only knew infravision.


KaeYoss wrote:
I haven't heard about ultravision to date. Did 2e still have that? That's the earliest AD&D I played, and I only knew infravision.

I am pretty sure it was there. The two went hand in hand.

Infravision was heat sources. You could see most living creatures, even see their footprints for a few seconds after they walked by.

But you couldn't necessarily tell if the big hot blob over there is your friend Bob the Barbarian or if it is the orc that Bob was just fighting.

And you can't read by infravision.

Dwarves, gnomes, and other stuff that lives deep in the ground would have infravision.

Ultravision is seing by ultraviolet light, which is present in the atmosphere even at night.

The vision would be black and white (violet and white?), like looking at a black and white negative of a photograph.

But the contrast is normal, meaning you can tell Bob from an Orc, and you can read by ultravision.

However, since it is atmoshpheric, a few feet of stone, or a few inches of metal would block it completely. Useless underground. Useless in a castle with thick stone walls. But still useful say, in a farmhouse or an inn, even in pitch-black night.

Elves and other magical creatures on the surface who could see in the dark had ultravision.

I think Drow had both, if I recall.

Both types of vision worked with zero normal light (unlike today's low-light vision), and both were spoiled by bright light.

So if you had a dwarf or an elf in the party, and the big old human had his torch out, your dwarf or elf better walk in front of him or the torch would spoil their vision.


KaeYoss wrote:


That's a preacher. A priest just practises the religion and leads the ceremonies.

So practising ceremonies isn't preaching at all? Besides, if following the dogma and practising ceremonises is all a preist does, you can't have a "warrior preist" unless the only gods he can follow are war gods. As it stands, theres only a few gods in any D'n'D setting which fall into this catagory.

KaeYoss wrote:


The difference is that I don't say that clerics shouldn't get anything else.

I like clerics being good at healing, but I'm not saying that I want all clerics to forced into that position.

But that's all channel energy does, it fortifies the idea that healing is the cleric's job. If the healing aspect was somthing only gained by say...taking the healing domain, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

If I give a class a class feature which grants additional damage in melee combat, would you say that class feature only serves to encourage that class to go into melee combat?

KaeYoss wrote:


Get Divine feats then and use channels differently.
Or play a neutral or evil cleric.
Or just don't use the ability.

If healing isn't a problem then this is a fine option, though yourself and others pro-channel energy insist it is, in which case playing a neutral or evil cleric is nerfed.

KaeYoss wrote:
I've done things like playing fighters that didn't use heavy armour and tower shields, as well as a large range of different martial weapons, or even 4 categories of weapons regularly.

Thats different. Have you tried playing a pacifist fighter who refuses to fight?

KaeYoss wrote:
I've played wizards who didn't fill their spellbooks to bursting with extra spells and changed their spell selection every day.

But they still had spells and the abiity to cast them right?

KaeYoss wrote:
bards can make great drill instructors. They are smart enough to remember all the stuff they have to instruct and learn didactic techniques, and charismatic enough to make others listen to them.

Being a bard doesn't not require you to be smart or have a good memory for encouraging phrases. It's not a presitge class. You like you bards that way? Fine, I don't, but it's easier to keep out of my PF games than channel energy.

KaeYoss wrote:


The discworld's role makes it perfect to showcase fantasy archetypes and stereotypes.

And making fun of them. The whole point of Rincewind is that he's not like other wizards. What about Cohen? Last I checked an old man with no teeth and back problems doesn't pass as a stereotypical barbarian. The Grim Reaper is rarely portrayed as having human emotions, let along acting as the main character for several books, so Death from Discworld certainly doesn't fall under the "Stereotype" catagory. Discworld's humour comes from taking stereotypes and playing with them, this doesn't mean the end results can are stereotypes (or can even function realisticly) in a more serious fantasy setting.

KaeYoss wrote:
Preaching is an RP aspect of the game. It's not a class feature or requirement of the cleric class (nor any core class that I'm aware of). It can be an RP aspect of any class, though, really. Clerics aren't the only holy men in the game. Any character can be a holy man, regardless of class.

True, but it was brought up since clerics are assumed to have some sort of code of conduct, similer to a paladin. But because cleric's can vary far more than paladins, there is no set code, but the writers still assumed there would be. Unlike these other holy characters, paladins and clerics receive their powers from their gods and their ways of life.

Though I admit it does seem to be derailing this topic by quite alot.


KaeYoss wrote:
I haven't heard about ultravision to date. Did 2e still have that? That's the earliest AD&D I played, and I only knew infravision.

I never played 2E so I don't know how it ruled infravision. But in first ed. Ad&D infravision was an infrared based vision. You could see heat signatures -- warm bodies, maybe footsteps depending on the DM. You couldn't read because the ink and paper were the same temperature. Ultravision was infravision on steroids. You could see in the dark,read even, not just see heat signatures.

51 to 75 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / [Cleric] Channel Energy - a Testamony of faith of the class feature All Messageboards
Recent threads in Playtest Reports
Rangers