Theurgy feat and things like it question

[Lady Melo]

So the Theurgy Feat stats that it can cause half the damage of a spell to deal holy (or unholy) damage. This wording appears different then flame strike which just says half the damage is divine power and therefor not subject to fire based resistances. Now the feat links holy damage as the weapon property (though this could be automated) however could easily make sense to me (Suggesting it is specifically good type damage (which can matter for Regen/good damage and such) and deals 2d6 extra on evil creatures). Is this correct?

[KrispyXIV]

Lady Melo wrote:

So the Theurgy Feat stats that it can cause half the damage of a spell to deal holy (or unholy) damage. This wording appears different then flame strike which just says half the damage is divine power and therefor not subject to fire based resistances. Now the feat links holy damage as the weapon property (though this could be automated) however could easily make sense to me (Suggesting it is specifically good type damage (which can matter for Regen/good damage and such) and deals 2d6 extra on evil creatures). Is this correct?

You're referring to the d20pfsrd, not to the prd. Unfortunately, d20pfsrd can sometimes be misleading or incorrect; I'm 99% certain that the feat is intended to make a spell function as per Flame Strike, and that the link to the Holy weapon propery is accidental and unrelated to the feat.

It could be better worded though.

[Cheapy]

It automatically linked to those things, based on pattern matching.

[Grick]

Lady Melo wrote:

So the Theurgy Feat stats that it can cause half the damage of a spell to deal holy (or unholy) damage.

If I was grand overlord developer (or the DM at a non-PFS table) I would say the Holy damage is good-aligned, and the unholy damage is evil-aligned. No extra 2d6, though.

[Cheapy]

I don't think the good-aligned-ness would actually matter, as that's for bypassing DR, which energy damage automatically bypasses anyways.

[Grick]

Cheapy wrote:

I don't think the good-aligned-ness would actually matter, as that's for bypassing DR, which energy damage automatically bypasses anyways.

It could stop the regenration of an Asura.

[Cheapy]

Which weren't around when the feat was made, so that's probably not the intent. (Unless there are others that have similar regen)

The words aren't linked in the PRD, and I feel it should be fairly obvious that it's meant to be divine energy, just like flamestrike. It's a poorly written feat all around. It requires Channel Energy...and druids and rangers and anyone else who is a divine spellcaster that doesn't channel energy can take it just fine.

[Lady Melo]

Cheapy wrote:

Which weren't around when the feat was made, so that's probably not the intent. (Unless there are others that have similar regen)

The words aren't linked in the PRD, and I feel it should be fairly obvious that it's meant to be divine energy, just like flamestrike. It's a poorly written feat all around. It requires Channel Energy...and druids and rangers and anyone else who is a divine spellcaster that doesn't channel energy can take it just fine.

I wouldn't say fairly obvious or their would be no need to reference holy and unholy damage based on conditions (especially if they didn't matter) instead of appearing just like flame strike which is an existing core spell that specifies divine as opposed to implying some kind of aligned damage. (Which still can matter for number of things, such as the infernal healing spell which can not recover good damage, the 2d6 on the other hand was just tossed in their as a just in case it was implied with those words, seeing as they already have way to express good/evil damage) Although i wont argue it is very poorly written

[Cheapy]

Yea, I realized that after I had written it, but couldn't edit it. I think the intent, then, was to make it a) non-resistable damage and b) to make it [good] or [evil].