| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This question came up from THIS thread...
Clerics have "Aura', Paladin/Anti-Paladin have "Aura of Good/Evil", Magambyaan Arcanist have "Aura of Good", Hellknight Signifier have "Aura of Law", but they aren't explicitly defined as all deriving from the Cleric ability (and thus being equivalent to it). As long as the specific Alignment is compatable with the given effect/pre-req, or the specific Alignment doesn't matter (e.g. Sacred Summons simply has Pre-Req: "Aura" Class Feature), should they be treated as equivalent regardless of difference in name? Many effects reference alignment Auras of specific Classes, should those restrictions be ignored as long as the special Aura matches the alignment?
Evil Aura Clerics (or Anti-Paladins, which didn't exist in the CRB) are NOT included in the list (covering Evil Subtype Outsiders, Evil Dragons and Undead) on the PRD, although in the Anti-Paladin entry, the Anti-Paladin's Aura of Evil states that it makes them vulnerable to double-damage from Smite Evil.
The Anti-Paladin's Smite Good includes both Paladins and Good Aura Clerics amongst it's 'double Smite damage' list (also covering Good Subtype Outsiders and Good Dragons). The asymmetry in double damage between Smite Evil (Anti-Paladins + Special Evil Stuff) and Smite Good (Paladins, Good Aura Clerics + Special Good Stuff) seems strange, since examples like Detect Good treat Good Cleric/Paladin Aura equivalently (although technically that doesn't mean they are equivalent in general).
They otherwise work identically in terms of receiving powers from Deity, the 1-step alignment rule, and atonements.
|
FAQed, but in the future it would be better make it 3 different posts to FAQ separately (even if in the same thread).
As you have made it the Developer need to make an all or nothing reply and that will make your question hard to manage. They can't reply the question separately and mark "part 1 resolved, part 2 and 3 pending".
What about oracles?
There really is nothing connecting Oracles to special Cleric/Paladin-like Alignment Auras, they don't have any sort of alignment aura class feature, none of their powers depend on their own Alignment, and their powers are not based on one Deity like a Cleric who must stay within one step of the Deity.
Of note, if you are playing a Cleric of an 'Ideal', then there is no special Aura, as that only applies to Clerics of Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic DEITIES (albeit if your Ideal were 'Good/Evil/Law/Chaos' an exception to allow the special Aura would make alot of sense, similar to how Paladins have an Aura of Good without necessarily being tied to a Good Deity, as they are tied to 'Cosmic' Goodness).
...These ARE kind of distinct if related questions, and answering them in separate FAQ entries would be more than reasonable...
I don't really care about how this thread is 'marked' as much as the result.
Some of them may even be Errata material, but there isn't really any separate flag/process for that AFAIK, beyond bringing it to Paizo's attention.
|
|
My point is that the developers will start sorting the FAQs (by number of hits). Find this one and look it: "Damn, there are 3 questions here. They can be rolled in one?" "No." "So we either try to resolve this FAQ with the time we have in this meeting and if we dong resolve it completely we will do nothing or we look the next FAQ ... go to the next FAQ."
After a few times they will flag it "replied in the FAQ" to remove it from the list and save time.
I can have got SKR posts about the FAQ system wrong but that is how it seem to work.
Make a multi question FAQ and it is almost sure it will not be resolved for a long time.
Does anybody know if this was answered anywhere in the FAQ? AFAIK, it was not.
I could take that as being in line with Diego's comments, but I just noticed another FAQ thread of mine,
which very clearly only had one simple question, was similarly marked 'Answered in FAQ' when that is not the case.
What the hell?
|
|
The other day, at 11.00 PM (West coast time), I noticed a question that was marked "answered in the FAQ" with no visible FAQ.
The actual FAQ was posted about 12 hours later, so return to your thread later today (or Monday, as I hope that Paizo people will get some rest during the week end) and look if the FAQ was published.
I think that the developers mark the question as "answered in the FAQ" as soon as they have decided what it the ruling, but then someone has to type the FAQ, check all is right and maybe adjust how it is written and then post it in all the relevant places.
It seem a straightforward thing, but typing a few answers after the end of the meeting where they decided the rulings can easily eat up several work hours. Probably the had to write report of the meeting before updating the forum.
That would be awesome.
|
|
My take on this :
1) The name
There was a similar topic about the various Channel abilities IIRC. The answer was that Channel is Channel. So I guess here Aura is Aura.
2) The Smites
Targets for additional damage (Paladin) : an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, also anti-paladin, so 4 categories
Targets for additional damage (Anti-Paladin) : an outsider with the good subtype, a good-aligned dragon, or a good creature with levels of cleric or paladin. Also 4 categories
The addition of good cleric is to balance the undead creature.
Adding evil cleric to the Paladin list would break the balance.
3) Inquisitor Aura.
No. Aura makes you shine like a beacon to Detect Alignments. Inquisitors prefer obscurity rather than the flashy displays of faith of their cleric and paladin brethrens.
Just for reference, I believe This is the FAQ that it is "answered" in.
The Black Raven essentially has it spelled out I believe.