|
Normal: A cleric of Sarenrae with the Glory and Sun Domains, when channelling to harm undead, gets +2 to the save DC and extra damage equal to the cleric's level.
Question: If the same cleric takes alignment channel (evil) and subsequently channels to harm evil outsiders - do these two bonuses (from the domains) count?
Con: The descriptions of these two domains state that the bonuses relate specifically to undead (unlike the Improved Channel feat which adds +2 to the save DC for all channelling, for instance).
Pro: The description of the Alignment channel feat says that "If you .... harm creatures of the chosen alignment subtype .... The amount of damage .... dealt and the DC to halve the damage is otherwise unchanged".
So which text takes precedence? Anyone out there feel up to a definitive statement on this please?
Normal: A cleric of Sarenrae with the Glory and Sun Domains, when channelling to harm undead, gets +2 to the save DC and extra damage equal to the cleric's level.
Question: If the same cleric takes alignment channel (evil) and subsequently channels to harm evil outsiders - do these two bonuses (from the domains) count?
Con: The descriptions of these two domains state that the bonuses relate specifically to undead (unlike the Improved Channel feat which adds +2 to the save DC for all channelling, for instance).
Pro: The description of the Alignment channel feat says that "If you .... harm creatures of the chosen alignment subtype .... The amount of damage .... dealt and the DC to halve the damage is otherwise unchanged".
So which text takes precedence? Anyone out there feel up to a definitive statement on this please?
No, you dont't get the bonusses against 'evil' Channel is an ability on it self. The domains give a specific bonus(undead in this case). So the bonus doesn't applies to other creatures.
Sorry, would be FUN!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Necro!
I was wondering the same thing as the OP, and apparently this was the only thread on the topic. (Go figure, eh?)
I feel torn on the issue.
The OP compares the "harm undead" wording of the Sun Domain power to the less-specific wording of Improved Channel. On the other hand, Improved Channel works with both positive and negative channelers, while the Sun Domain only applies to positive channelers (whether you have Alignment Channel or not).
Remembering that the write-ups for class abilities, feats, and so forth typically assume that all other things are "normal" rather than planning for every possible combination of abilities, what was in mind when the wording was chosen for these abilities?
For Improved Channel, it's pretty obvious that both positive and negative channelers are meant to benefit, so it has broad wording.
For Sun's Blessing, it would be WAY more powerful for negative channelers than positive channelers, so they restricted it. (I'm not aware of any deities which would allow negative channeling and also grant the Sun domain, but the base cleric includes the possibility of cherry-picking.) Now, they could have written "Whenever you channel positive energy to harm, do X". But that would actually be an incomplete sentence (the verb "harm" needs a direct object), and since the base assumption of a class write-up is without any modifying factors, then it's assumed that the only thing you *CAN* channel positive energy to harm is undead, so saying as much isn't really restricting anything.
So what it comes down to is this question of intent:
Did the writer of Sun's Blessing have Alignment Channel in mind and deliberately restrict it?
*OR*
Did the writer of Sun's Blessing simply use the wording most appropriate to a "basic" cleric, and special cases (like the ability to harm something other than undead with positive energy) are supposed to modify its function accordingly?
I'm personally leaning toward the latter, but I have a Sun Domain cleric with a grudge against evil outsiders, so I shouldn't presume I'm being 100% objective (though I'm trying).
Thoughts?
Similarly I'd like to know if a Phylactery of Positive Channeling (or whatever it's called) would add 2d6 damage when worn by someone with Alignment Channel/Evil who is channelling to harm a demon.
No. The wording specifically says "channeling to harm undead" not channeling to harm creatures.
Jiggy, the powers that be at Paizo have stated (I can't remember the thread) that more specific wording take precedence over less-specific wording when it comes to rules. So in this case the Sun-Domains wording is the winner because, as you pointed out, is more specific.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No. The wording specifically says "channeling to harm undead" not channeling to harm creatures.
Jiggy, the powers that be at Paizo have stated (I can't remember the thread) that more specific wording take precedence over less-specific wording when it comes to rules. So in this case the Sun-Domains wording is the winner because, as you pointed out, is more specific.
Let's suppose you're right.
If instead they did want it to work with Alignment Channel, how do you suppose they'd have phrased it?
I'm guessing something along the lines of "channeling to harm" or "when channelling against creatures that your channel ability can harm". Leave off any mention of a specific creature type.
That way it covers evil clerics channeling negative energy to harm living creatures and good clerics channeling to hurt undead or any other creature they could harm by having taken the selective channeling feat.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So two things that I already discussed, eh? Kind of frustrating that the only person responding to my question didn't even bother to read my post. Maybe someone else will happen along with an inclination to discuss the "either intent could have used the same wording" issue.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lest I give the impression that I'm completely crazy, let me see if I can elaborate on why I think the obvious literal interpretation has the potential to be incorrect.
Have a look at the TWF rules. They're written with only the Core Rulebook in mind, and therefore carry some assumptions:
• The PC is a two-armed, humanoid race.
• The PC is using Core weapons, nearly all of which require a limb.
• The PC is in straightforward combat situations in which the only reason to be wielding two different weapons is to employ this classic fighting style; he's not in some weird situation where he'd have a particular reason to use different weapons for his iterative attacks.
As a result, the TWF rules make some interesting word choices:
• The mechanic is called "Two Weapon Fighting", even though you can fight with two weapons without using this mechanic.
• The avenue of the extra attack gained is called "the off-hand" (since it's assumed to use a hand and an inferior-to-your-main-hand weapon), even though really the "off-hand" weapon doesn't even have to involve a hand at all (it could be a boot blade, dwarven boulder helmet, an unarmed kick, etc).
The Core Rulebook chose to both name and describe a mechanic in the terms of the most basic application thereof: some ordinary dude with two swords instead of one, or fighting with a quarterstaff, so some similarly classic image. Thus, when someone reads about the mechanic for the first time, it's relatively easy to "get it". The terminology calls to mind the obvious application, which even a (formerly) non-gamer would be able to understand.
But when you start moving beyond those assumptions the terminology no longer makes sense. You have to dig around a bit and discover that "off-hand" has nothing to do with hands, and that fighting with two weapons is not necessarily Two Weapon Fighting.
Taking the text at face value, while applying it to situations outside the scope of the assumptions within which it was written, will actually produce the wrong answers. I've read an awful lot of Pathfinder designer/developer commentary on various topics, where someone said "But the rule says X!" and the dev response was "Yes, but that rule was written with the assumption of a 'typical' PC/situation, and moving outside that assumption requires that you interpret the rule more broadly."
So then I look at Sun's Blessing, and I wonder if something similar is afoot. It's written with the assumption of a straightforward, ordinary cleric; not one who's taking feats to completely change the normal parameters of the class. The baseline assumption of clerics is that you can only do the following:
• Channel positive energy, either to heal living or harm undead
• Channel negative energy, either to harm living or heal undead
So then you've got Sun's Blessing, where you have an ability that's only for positive channelers, and only for offensive applications. Guess what? The basic assumption within which the entire class description is written is that the only situation in which you're channeling positive energy offensively is to harm undead. So when Sun's Blessing says "when you channel positive energy to harm undead", is it really trying to shut off all possible variant situations that might be introduced, or is it — much like the terms "off-hand" and "two weapon fighting" — simply the most straightforward wording and needs to be interpreted differently when you start looking outside the scope of its original assumptions?
That's what I'm looking to discuss.
So two things that I already discussed, eh? Kind of frustrating that the only person responding to my question didn't even bother to read my post. Maybe someone else will happen along with an inclination to discuss the "either intent could have used the same wording" issue.
I read it Jiggy. And you're right about the sentence structure which is why I put a second option in my response. You could make it a complete sentence by phrasing it "intent to do harm" That way "harm" needs no subject.
As for intent vs literalism, I tend to lean toward intent. And the intent to me, is to increase Sun's Blessing to the damaging of undead specifically. I also interpret that intent not just because of the very specific wording but because Sun's Blessing would be WAY more powerful for negative channelers, as you point out above. Meanwhile the intent of Improved channeling is to simply add to the DC of your channel and does not have any language specifically calling out any caveats. I don't think its NOT limited in order make it more "applicable". I think its NOT limited because it doesn't need to be, it's isn't overpowering in any build I can think of and doesn't give good or evil clerics an advantage over the other.
So in this case the literal wording is backing up what I see as the intent of the power.
So...I guess what we're butting heads over is not literal vs intent but two different interpretations of the intent.
To really mess with you, I would say that I might allow Sun's Blessing to work against creatures other than undead simply because I think the dmg/healing from channeling is a bit low, specially the higher you get in levels.
My lvl 17 cleric rarely bothers with an 8d6 burst in combat because creatures are doing about 125 dmg in a round and channeling just can't keep up. The same would apply if I was doing damage with it. Unless there's a lot of creatures I can hit at once, it's not generally worth it.
But I would see my ruling as going "against the intent" of the power, not with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not saying the intent *is* that it works with Alignment Channel (or other such modifications that may or may not be released in the future), I'm just pondering the possibility.
Relatedly, why does Alignment Channel include the following line?
The amount of damage healed or dealt and the DC to halve the damage is otherwise unchanged.
Does it mean to say that if you have some ability which alters your channel damage, this feat does not cause it to revert back to standard damage? Or is it just stating the obvious?
I guess I just feel like this topic merits a closer look. Some rules must be read in the mindset that leads to one answer, while other rules must be read in the mindset that leads to the other answer, and I don't feel very confident about which mindset I should use when reading this rule.
And usually when I find a situation like that, poking it enough will eventually leave me feeling more confident about it (in one direction or the other).
I suspect that the latter is correct. As mentioned in the OP, the channel alignment feat states "[t]he amount of damage healed or dealt and the DC to halve the damage is otherwise unchanged." It seems to me, therefore, that the question posed by this thread is: "Otherwise unchanged from what?" The place to look for the answer to that question is the description of the channel energy ability in the basic cleric class. When I go there I find this:
So what it comes down to is this question of intent:
Did the writer of Sun's Blessing have Alignment Channel in mind and deliberately restrict it?
*OR*
Did the writer of Sun's Blessing simply use the wording most appropriate to a "basic" cleric, and special cases (like the ability to harm something other than undead with positive energy) are supposed to modify its function accordingly?I'm personally leaning toward the latter, but I have a Sun Domain cleric with a grudge against...
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric 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 a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures.
That tells me that the answer to the question "Unchanged from what?" is "Unchanged from the amount of damage dealt to undead creatures by good clerics and dealt to living creatures by evil clerics." The cleric of Sarenrae mentioned in the OP, therefore, should do the same amount of damage to evil outsiders using the alignment channel feat that the cleric would do to undead. The amount of damage that the cleric would do to undead includes bonuses from the Glory and Sun domains; therefore, to do the same amount of damage to evil outsiders we should include those bonuses.
|
I can see why Sun's Blessing would be intended to only increase the DC of harming undead, even if you can harm other creatures with positive energy. Undead have a general weakness to sun-related magic such as Sunbeam or Searing Light on top of the specific weakness of some undead such as vampires to sunlight.
Because I'm happy to fudge in favour of the player if it's fun, thematic, and not too OP, As a GM I might allow it to affect evil outsiders as they are also usually darkness-associated. But I wouldn't allow it to affect, say, fire elementals.
|
|
It's super clear RAW Jiggy, if the developers wanted these to work with Alignment channel then they could've put an addendum within the feat that said something like, "All abilities that apply to channel energy for the purpose of harming living or undead creatures also apply to Alignment Channel for the purpose of harming outsiders".
Homebrew it if you want, but damn this game has so many things that are unclear in their intent, don't go imagining new ones for us.