I think he was confused and thinking about Dhampyr.
Or he's just one of those guys with an axe to grind about the races.
He is incorrect. An outsider is a living creature and is healed by positive energy. There is no rule that says "all living creatures except outsiders can be healed by positive energy".
Or he's just one of those guys with an axe to grind about the races.
Even if he dislikes the races being opened up(as I do), you still need to play by the rules. You can't arbitrarily decide how things work in the game.
At any rate, you are correct OP. Channel Energy affects ALL living creatures, including Humanoids, Animals, Aberrations, Outsiders, Plants, and yes, even Oozes. Channel Energy even works on Undead, it just flips the heal/harm aspect. To my knowledge, the only things Channel does not affect at all are Constructs.
|
The GM was flat out wrong.
Aasimar and tieflings are living creatures. That is the key factor when dealing with positive energy healing.
They are not constructs. They are not undead. They are not beings wired into negative energy affinity like dhampir.
The GM really needs to be clarified on that, because it can and will cause serious issues further down the line. Plus, it's an illegal ruling anyway.
|
|
I think he was confused and thinking about Dhampyr.
Or he's just one of those guys with an axe to grind about the races.
I am pretty sure that I know the GM in question. If I am right, it was an honest mistake and not him having an axe to grind.
If, in fact, he is mistaken. If outsiders are automatically healed by channeled energy then the alignment channel feat (the one that allows outsiders to be healed by channeled energy) is a bit strange. Clearly there are SOME differences between outsiders and other living beings.
Mergy is correct.
|
|
I think he was confused and thinking about Dhampyr.
Or he's just one of those guys with an axe to grind about the races.
I am pretty sure that I know the GM in question. If I am right, it was an honest mistake and not him having an axe to grind.
Someone really needs to let him know now.
Have to admit, it's really easy to jump to the "axe to grind" conclusion with all the race haterade flowing around. Someone not engaging in that sort of behavior shouldn't get stuck with a reputation they don't deserve when it was just an honest mistake.
|
|
Yep. They don't have an alignment subtype, but I don't think it's because they're native-subtype. I'd need to check to be certain, but I think a number of native-types do have alignment subtypes, like rakshasas and maybe(?) couatls.
edit-Scratch that, neither of those examples have alignment subtypes either. The Oni Ogre Mage too. Looks like I'm wrong on that, as far as I can tell.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure Alignment Channel couldn't affect a tiefling or aasimar anyway. Aren't they of the native subtype, and therefore not technically good or evil outsiders?
Alignment channel has to due with the subtypes of good and evil. Teifling and Aasimars don't have those
|
I think he was confused and thinking about Dhampyr.
Just to clarify:
Dhampyr are affected by Channel Energy used to affect living. They just get the opposite effect to normal.Positive energy harms them, negative energy heals them.
Makes for a wonderful image, going up against that negative channel BBEG and watching his jaw drop when the Pathfinder he is fighting and just channeled to harm looks healthier instead of unhealthier. ;)
You have how damphir work incorrect. If the cleric channeled to harm living it would not heal the damphir. Only if he channeled to heal undead allies.
|
|
You have how damphir work incorrect. If the cleric channeled to harm living it would not heal the damphir. Only if he channeled to heal undead allies.
Try again. Dhampyr are LIVING beings. They react to Channel Energy in the same way as Undead, not AS undead.
Channel Energy to affect Undead will NOT, repeat NOT affect Dhampyr, who are LIVING beings not Undead.
|
Kinevon, Sorry to correct you, but you are incorrect.
It is laid out here by Sean how it is supposed to work.
Folks, suggesting we go back to how channeling was in the Beta doesn't help the discussion of NEA. We're not going to change how the channeled energy rules work and we're certainly not going to change it back to how it was in the Beta. Let's remained focused on NEA so we can make it understandable, compatible with channel energy as written, and still fit in the 3-4 lines available in the Bestiary 2 appendix.
Here's the example scenario, and how NEA is supposed to interact with channel energy.
You have a cleric PC, his dhampir buddy PC, and an enemy ghoul.
If the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead).
If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).And here's the latest revision to NEA:
Is that sufficient, or can we make the NEA wording clearer so "everyone" would interpret the example scenario correctly? I think the problem now is the word "targeted," because channel energy doesn't "target" anyone, it's an area that is tuned to either heal the living or harm undead.
|
|
Kinevon, Sorry to correct you, but you are incorrect.
It is laid out here by Sean how it is supposed to work.
Folks, suggesting we go back to how channeling was in the Beta doesn't help the discussion of NEA. We're not going to change how the channeled energy rules work and we're certainly not going to change it back to how it was in the Beta. Let's remained focused on NEA so we can make it understandable, compatible with channel energy as written, and still fit in the 3-4 lines available in the Bestiary 2 appendix.
Here's the example scenario, and how NEA is supposed to interact with channel energy.
You have a cleric PC, his dhampir buddy PC, and an enemy ghoul.
If the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead).
If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).And here's the latest revision to NEA:
Is that sufficient, or can we make the NEA wording clearer so "everyone" would interpret the example scenario correctly? I think the problem now is the word "targeted," because channel energy doesn't "target" anyone, it's an area that is tuned to either heal the living or harm undead.
And, to be honest, I don't understand. Dhampyr are LIVING creatures, not Undead.
I have posted my response to SKR in that thread, since the whole thing makes no sense, in a thematic, game rules, or fun in playing sense.
Dhampyr are LIVING creatures, not Undead.
Who react to positive energy as if they were undead. I really don't see how there could be any confusion regarding that. Same thing happens to Dhampirs as does to the rest of the undead. Couldn't be simpler, really.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Who react to positive energy as if they were undead. I really don't see how there could be any confusion regarding that. Same thing happens to Dhampirs as does to the rest of the undead. Couldn't be simpler, really.
.
.Actually, I can see Kinevon's train of thought.
You (and me, and SKR) see the Dhampir as being targeted and affected as if it were undead.
Kinevon sees the Dhampir as being targeted like the living creature it is, but affected as if if were undead.
Which would lead to the effect that the actual result of channeled energy on a Dhampir is always the exact opposite to what its intendes use was (channeling to heal the living will harm it, channeling to harm the living will heal it, and any channeling to affect undead will have zero effect).