no, 'living foe' is one of the clear things about the ability.
that also excludes using it vs. allies, i.e. dhampir allies who would be healed by negative energy.
[EDIT]the character's own perceptions would normally seem to determine things,
but those could be confused by spells (affecting you but not the spirit totems),
or merely a foe mundanely masquerading as a friend... (at most a bluff check),
and the target in question could themselves be confused by a spell/etc and be treating you the opposite of how they normally would at that moment.
(a given character can legitimately, minus any illusion/confusion/etc, switch from foe to friend at different points in time, of course)
i think it would be like smite evil, the spirit totems can just accurately discern who is a real friend and who is a real foe (at the moment), beyond all magical or mundane attempts at deception, and independent of your own (or the targets') perceptions/beliefs of those things in the moment... or more accurately, independent of your or the target's manipulated/altered perceptions. if the perceptions are not manipulated/altered (EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE, I.E. ARE BASED ON IGNORANCE OR FAULTY REASONING), then the perceptions WOULD correspond to the foe/friend determination. even if one character only perceives the other as a foe because of manipulation, if the other character perceives the first as a foe without being manipulated, then they are indeed foes, effectively.
same thing for discerning living vs. non-living, it's just 100% accuracy like smite evil.
quite a bit more onus on the GM, since friend/foe are not as strong of game terms as good/evil alignment, but it seems left up to GM ruling as to who/what is truly friend vs. foe (at that moment, with all illusion or deception negated, no matter the method). the spirit totems will accurately target only true foes.
...kind of weird implications for the rules (smite evil is alot simpler), but that's how it seems the RAW would play out.
agreed... all i can say is hopefully a new printing is released soon, it feels like there's a bunch of Errata issues that should have been dealt with, not to mention 'pure' FAQ type of things... haven't seen any Rules Blogs for quite a while, either.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Blackbloodtroll asked me to cruise by and offer some unofficial authorial insight on this, but unfortunately I have none to add. While I did write the barbarian sections for the APG and UC, there were some rage powers already written up when I got the original APG assignment. The spirit totems (and beast totem, for that matter) were were among those. Having not created them, I don't have any better idea of their original intent than you.
As far as my impression of the lesser spirit totem or my opinion of how it should work just as a fan, I'd stick with my general policy on rules interpretation: It says what it does, and it does what it says. To wit:
1. It attacks with your BAB plus CHA mod. It's not a creature, so it can't be affected by anything that affects creatures (like inspire courage, bless, haste), and it's not an object so it can't be affected by things that affect objects (like magic weapon or keen edge). It could benefit from a situational modifier like higher ground, flanking, attacking a prone opponent, or mayyyybe the circumstance bonus from aid another.
2. It says the "spirits make a slam attack." It doesn't say "you" make a slam attack. Therefore, while it's certainly possible for *you* to choose to substitute various combat maneuvers, etc. for an attack, it's not you making the attack; it's the spirits. The power says they make a slam attack, so they make a slam attack. Period. It doesn't even say whether you get to choose which living foe the spirits attack; it's ambiguous as to whether you choose it or the spirits choose randomly. I think inferring that you can command the spirits to do things other than make a slam attack isn't really supported by the rules text.
All of the above IMO, YMMV, of course. :)
Well that is very interesting info IMHO. Switching the author half-way thru seems very likely to reduce Editorial-Authorial communications with the author of the original material if they are no longer working on the topic and are doing other things.
Jason's conclusions seems to be in line with the broad consensus of what the RAW means (if intent is a mystery), but I disagree on a couple of interpretations.
The spirits don't clearly count as a 'creature', but I don't think that means they can't count as an 'ally': The text references them attacking 'her [your] foes' (which I go into above). Foe and ally are obviously 'opposite' concepts... and based on how the Spirit Totem's behave (attacking your foes), I don't see how it shouldn't be characterized as your ally: it's not your foe, and it's not an uninvolved bystander. Even though it may not be a 'creature', or anything else specific in game terms, it seems to be just as much your ally as a creature could be. It isn't just an 'unthinking' force of nature, it makes conclusions about the status of creatures based on friend or foe, and takes action against 'foes'. That's good enough to count as an 'ally' for me. If it was the reverse and some non-creature 'entity' was attacking me because of my personal status in relation to it (or designated 'allies'), then it would seem reasonable to count the entity as my 'foe' (for AC bonuses applying adjacent foes, for example), so I don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be legit.
That said, many effects (bonuses) which apply to 'allies' are also phrased to apply to creatures, or a specific number of creatures, in which case it wouldn't apply to the Spirit Totems.
Also, I believe that any 'attack substitutable maneuver' SHOULD be able to delivered by Spirit Totem. This logic would also go for Spiritual Weapon, incidentally. Attack substitutable maneuvers (Trip, Disarm, Sunder and possibly a few others) can be substituted in place of any attack. The Spirit Totem's Slams are attacks, just as an Elemental's Slams are attacks. When a normal Fighter chooses to Trip with their Longsword, they are still making an attack with their longsword (not a 'normal' attack, but it is still an attack with their longsword), likewise an Elemental making a Trip attack with their Slam is still making a Slam attack. Spirit Totem making a Trip Attack 'with' the Slam is still 'making a Slam attack', and so should be a valid expression of what the ability proscribes.
That said, the rationale of 'deciding' between normal or maneuver attacks is totally absent from the text, but then again, so is the rationale for how the Spirit Totem may choose to target multiple valid targets. (Spiritual Weapon attacks 'as you direct it', so there is no problem there) Within the RAW there is no real proscription for how to choose between normal and maneuver attacks, but random chance always can work (as for multiple valid adjacent targets), along with simple GM adjudication of what is 'reasonable' (in the case of multiple targets, it may be reasonable for the Spirit Totem to repeatedly attack the same target or square until it is dead, rather than attack randomly every round, or if one creature is considered more of a foe than another, that could be a valid 'rationale' IMHO). If the GM is playing such that all attackers intuitively have some sense of the result of their attacks (normally, damage), then not doing damage (e.g. thru inability to penetrate DR, or target immunity) also seems like a valid reason for the Spirit Totem to 'choose' to make maneuver attacks with the Slam.
More so than the ally issue, this one is kind of inconclusive enough that if you just said the Spirit Totems only do 'normal' non-maneuver Slams that seems legit (and simplest) as well, Spiritual Weapon is open to full user control but Spirit Totem isn't so might as well default to the simplest case (it has enough un-simple questions about other scenarios, e.g. Miss Chance or non-awareness of targets in Darkness/Invisibility).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Interestingly, I don't think you have to be aware of the foe at all. The power simply requires that they be (a) living and (b) adjacent to you. If those qualifications are met, the spirits can attack whether the barbarian can see them or not. Since it can sense their presence and adjacency, logic suggests they would know which square the unseen creature was in, though it doesn't say it can actually see the target, so miss chance should still apply.
Just my two bits.
Right, the Spirit Wisps are essentially Omniscient about everything that matters to them...
They simply don't have any stats (numeric or otherwise) which could lend specificity to their Perceptions (much less other characteristics of a creature), so Omniscience is the only mode which makes sense.
(this is what I alluded to with the Smite Evil comparison, which doesn't care about mechanics of DETECTING Evil, which can be spoofed, it just 100% accurately works based on 'true' Alignment)
...But I believe that with creatures for whom 'seeing the target' is totally superfluous to detecting and attacking, Miss Chance from not being able to see them (Concealment) isn't actually meant to apply, because there is no line of vision that is being impeded. Creatures that have some other 'super sense' (and may lack vision entirely) often work like this, but a non-creature 'entity' that is simply omniscient (effectively) and doesn't HAVE any Perception senses would seem to be in the same boat. It may seem even weirder, but even Cover including Total Cover could plausibly not apply, since there is no 'creature' occupying any specific square(s) in the first place, we just have these phantom Slam attacks targetting squares adjacent to you, but not FROM any specific location (to calculate Cover to/from). The RAW says you are 'surrounded by spirit wisps', but that isn't really specific enough to place them in a location.
But all of this is just totally bizarre in terms of how we're usually asked to apply the rules of the game (see above post about omniscient divination of 'foe-dom'). If this is how it's meant to work, just a little bit really needs to be spelled out. If vision and visual miss chance is irrelevant, that should be stated. I think the RAW /is/ 'playable' - BARELY (this level of 'barely' should really not count as playable) - but I can easily see intent (original or with hindsight) being different from RAW as we've come to understand it, and an Errata'd version just being easier to use for most players - that can go several directions though.
Please hit FAQ if you haven't already.
|
I thank you very much Jason for your insight.
Without full clarification, my DM will need to make a ruling.
Every bit of information helps.
I am still curious of how they would be effected by things like Inspire Competence, and other effects that apply to allies in an area.
Simply knowing if they count as allies would be a big step.
Again, I thank you.
Another thing to consider Quandry, is improved manuvers. If your spirit buddy decides to do a trip attack and you do NOT have improved trip, do you provoke an AoO? Can you be counter-tripped if you fail by 10 or more?
I think it shouldn't really be looked at as a separate entity. The spirits use your charisma for damage. They are clearly powered by, and coming from you.
It would stand to reason that if you are receiving bonuses or penalties, that the spirits would also.
|
|
The wording is unclear if it is a separate entity, or not.
If it is, or not, does not quite completely answer the question of what adds, or subtracts, from the attack rolls/damage.
Either way, it is still unclear, as to what can, and cannot, be combined with it.
If it is a separate entity, then what kind of entity it is, needs to be answered as well.
There is nearly nothing within the Pathfinder universe, that cannot be altered/affected, by a PC.
Provided he/she has the right spell/ability, of course.
|
I think it shouldn't really be looked at as a separate entity. The spirits use your charisma for damage. They are clearly powered by, and coming from you.
It would stand to reason that if you are receiving bonuses or penalties, that the spirits would also.
I see it as a separate entity made and powered by you. I would rule as a GM to treat it as a spiritual weapon. Meaning you direct it with your anger but since its sorta magic most bonuses don't apply. As a role player I want to say that things that affect your mental state, ( moral insight, competence) should affect it but as a rules lawyer I don't think they do.
Probably isn't up yet.
Give them a few days and you will probably be seeing a Blog/FAQ Update with the Answers.
|
Wait.
It reads "answered in FAQ" at the top of the OP.
Where is it?
I must know!
I would be here, if it was at all, but it does not currently appear to be.
Okay, this is just annoying.
If it is really answered somewhere, where is the answer?
Also, does this attack heal undead?
The author was quite clear. The power does exactly what it says, no more no less. What adds to it? Your CHA modifier. Nothing else.
What does it do?
The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian’s Charisma modifier.
To whom? A living foe.
Does it heal undead- does it say so? Then no.
I mean, really this was about as clear as they could make it. It does what it sez. Now, the author was kind enough to come by and confirm that's exactly what it does and no more.
Honestly they can't add eight paragraphs to a one paragraph power.
Well if you read what Jason Nelson wrote, he explicitly says he is not the author, and he doesn't know the intent any more than us, he is just giving his reading of RAW as he would apply to any piece of rules text. I'm sure it was due to your mis-reading of things and nothing else, but falsely misrepresenting what has happened doesn't help anybody.
When people FAQ something the point is that they are asking for clarification beyond what the mere RAW contains. Jason also didn't address many of the other questions that have been brought up in the thread, beyond the 'what attack attack bonuses apply/ who is making these attacks' mentioned in the first post. The later questions are really the more problematic ones.
My question is: WHO marked the thread as answered in FAQ, when it hasn't been. Even if Jason Nelson's post is supposed to be sufficient, why wasn't that posted into the FAQ where it can help the most people, rather than just people participating in this thread (and who can find it several years from now)? Doesn't take any more effort really to post it into the FAQ instead of the thread (albeit it's likely Jason Nelson doesn't have the permissions to post directly to the FAQ)
The RAW answers the questions. There is really no need for a FAQ. I understand some folks would like a personallized set of answers on a minor issue, but long answers on a subject covered 100% by the RAW are a waste of time.
What question is not answered by RAW?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
selection between multiple valid targets
relevance of sight/lack of sight (when the Totems don't have any modes of vision or a Perception score) for whether the Totems are subject to Miss Chance in Dim Light/Darkness or if they are subject to Full Concealment ALL THE TIME for not actually seeing the target
relevance of Cover (since the Totems are not a creature occupying any square, you can't draw lines from attacker to target to determine Cover, even if target is inside a metal box)
Jason Nelson said they can benefit from higher ground and flanking, both of which depend on the attacker being in a certain square (the Totems don't actually exist or occupy any specific square) and drawing a line from that to the foe's in Flanking's case (like Cover is calculated).
Jason Nelson said "maaaaybe" (great official ruling there) Aid Another can apply to them. But Aid Another works on 'friends', i.e. allies. Yet he wrote than attack bonuss to Allies DON'T apply to them. What gives? Is 'friend' really supposed to be a different thing than 'ally'? So if you're not getting along with another PC in-character, you can't use Aid Another even though you are still allies?
determinations of foe/friend (since the Totems seem outside of the Barbarian's control and perceptions, as Jason said the Barb doesn't even need to know the foe is there) when either the Barb or creatures around them (normally friend or foe) could be deluded by magic or somebody could be mundanely Bluffing their true intentions, not to mention that either or both could be invisible. if both Barb and the other creature are Invisible and not aware of each other, are they foes?
regardless, Jason Nelson is clear on the scope of what he is writing. not only is it his unofficial opinion, but he is clear that what he is writing is simply in line with his standard approach to interpreting rules, i.e. RAW. well, if we can competently interpret RAW, we don't really need Jason Nelson to do that. when people are FAQing things for an official response from Paizo, they are usually not asking Paizo to give them a competent reading of the RAW, rather, they want Paizo's official perspective taking into account the INTENT of things. You can look at the FAQ, and many rulings go beyond what the pure RAW says, yet Jason Nelson is just going off the pure RAW here by his own account... Thus, it's not comparable to an official Paizo FAQ response. Never mind the outstanding questions above.
Yes, I know he wasn’t speaking “ex cathedra’, but since he basically said “Follow and do what the RAW sez, no more, no less, all he was doing was confirming that he checked and there were no obvious types or things left out.
Is the guy a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian? If so, he can be attacked. You do have to use a little common sense about what a “foe’ is, in no case do they spell it out, as it doesn’t need to be. You could dissect anything from any book and come out with the same questions.
The RAW is perfectly clear. There are no "outstanding questions". You know that full well.
yes, it's clear that a 'foe' (however that is determined) adjacent to you 'can' be attacked.
that doesn't deal with any of the issues i raised, which you flat out ignored.
several things JN wrote have conflicts either internally or with basic rules (aid another/bonuses to allies, higher ground/flanking).
there is absolutely zero guidance on how to choose amongst multiple valid targets, whether totally random from round to round, whether it will continue to target one creature until dead once selected, whether it will target the 'strongest' or 'weakest' target (omnisciently perceiving that along with enemy locations and hostility?), whether it will switch targets if the attacks are ineffective, etc.
and again, why is it being marked 'answered in FAQ' when it is not in the FAQ? the reason the FAQ exists is so that valid questions may be answered in a way broadly visible to all players for all time - which this thread is not. why would they claim to answer it in that way, when that has not happened? if they want to mark 'FAQ not needed' that is it's own thing (although there are certainly vague issues that deserve clarification in my opinion).
i can't.
to be fair, i think most of the extant questions re: RAW were brought up after the original post, but if we want to get into intent than the RAW isn't necessarily even 'the bible' anyways. i think this is a decently important enough rules item to get a FAQ on, at least if any barbarian character is to diverge from beast totem. the function of this feat also impacts on the entire spirit totem chain.
although i personally have never done so, i don't think it would be entirely inappropriate to email one of the paizo rules developers, editing all the raised issues into the most digestible form possible since they are somewhat varied. i would probably try to write the email up, wait to read and re-write it later, and one more time just to make sure it's well written so as to not waste anybody's time.
there is the RAW itself and the straightforward application of that (which JN mostly covers) but other questions persist, which hinge on what the ability actually is/does, and possibly changing the RAW could be the best way to clear everything up.
Can't find the FAQ but I'll give you my read on it.
Barb gets to pick which foe is attacked by the power. It uses BAB + Cha mod for attack roll, and 1d4+cha mod for damage. Things that would buff it, are area effecting spells/effects that do not require language/understanding. Also anything that buffs the barb's cha would help.
It is quite clear it only can attack a living foe adjacent to the barb. Undead and constructs are not living.
Its pretty much that simple. If something doesn't specifically address affecting the spirits, assume it doesn't.