Actually, that TLDR was me letting people here know that they could skip all the discussion in the other thread because the net result of that discussion is "yes, this needs to change, and will be changed." I wasn't dismissing what was discussed here.
Ah -- gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
How do those sound?
We'd need to cut off all the upcoming arguments over which things use negative energy, etc. -- which is easy to do, by specifying "spells and effects that are specifically described as positive or negative energy effects," rather than just "that use positive or negative energy."
|
A problem with that wording-
A paladin's Lay on Hands ability is never specifically described to be positive energy, yet SKR confirms it's 'supposed to be'. So (barring a complete rewrite of the spells to specify what is and isn't what sort of energy) that admission sets the precedent that one may (or must) interpret what is and is not positive/negative even if not explicitly said in the description.
edit: made it sound less like I think LoH being 'ruled' positive energy as being crazy talk ;D
A paladin's Lay on Hands ability is never specifically described to be positive energy, yet SKR says it's 'supposed to be'.
You're right -- it's a problem that even if we start using technical language now, the core rules are still written loosely in non-technical "you know what I mean" language. If Paizo's sales on the earlier printings were good enough, I'd submit that a reprint of the core rulebook, after proofreading by a technical editor, would probably sell a few more copies and would be a service to their fan base.
Barring that, your catch means that we have to add enough language to rectify the past miskakes, as well as fix current ones. Ugh. For example, we'd have to spell out "...spells and effects specifically described as positive or negative energy effects. These include the paladin's lay on hands ability, which was specifically erratad as a positive energy effect, and also the antipaladin's touch of corruption, which was specifically erratad as a negative energy effect."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
perhaps Sean could make a big list of which spells and effects use positive or negative energy (and keep updating it as new books come out) I mean it is not like he has other questions to worry or think about instead of this rare ability that only affects a handful of creatures that many (if not most) GMs probably won't use unless they happen to appear in a module they are running anyway.
|
|
If you haven't seen the thread about the web blog, or the blog post itself, he's given NEA a new wording, but the final verbage hasn't been finalized.
Essentially, the new version says that spells and effects that treat undead and living differently always treat the NEA as undead.
So it clarifies positive and negative channels.. but doesn't necessarily open the door for more shenaniganas like disrupt undead and hide from undead, since they only affect undead and the NEA won't suffer extra vulnerabilites quite as often as it sounds at first.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I posted a suggestion for the new wording, and I think it covers all the bases succinctly. Head on over and let everyone know what you think. :)