Ok, so this discussion came up when I expressed my idea for a Dhampir Archer Paladin if I ever got the boon.
PVP is strictly not allowed in PFS. Now, lets say this scenario, A Cleric is in a party with a Dhampir. The cleric Channels postive energy w/o the selective channeling feat. Because a Dhampir is hurt by positive energy, does that make it PVP? And cant be done?
|
I'd figure it would be PvP if the cleric is going out of their way to catch the dhampir in a channel OR if the dhampir is putting himself in channel range when the cleric really needs to do it.
If it's a situatin where the cleric needs to channel and asks ths dhampir(either IC or OOC) if they're okay with it and the dhampir responds "DO IT!", it's not PvP. It's an awesome dramatic moment. :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If the cleric is channelling to heal the living members of the party, the dhampir won't take damage. If the cleric is channelling to harm undead, he would.
It's analogous to a wizard casting fireball into a crowd of bad guys who are swarming over a fighter ally. At my table, the wizard is not allowed to cast that spell unless the guy playing the fighter is okay with it.
If the cleric is channelling to heal the living members of the party, the dhampir won't take damage. If the cleric is channelling to harm undead, he would.
It's analogous to a wizard casting fireball into a crowd of bad guys who are swarming over a fighter ally. At my table, the wizard is not allowed to cast that spell unless the guy playing the fighter is okay with it.
But isnt Harm undead positive energy?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hotcauceman, every time a cleric channels positive energy, she does so to either heal the living or harm the undead. She doesn't get to do both with the same blast.
As long as she's trying to heal her companions, she will neither heal nor harm the dhampir. If she tries to channel positive energy to harm undead, he's a viable target.
|
Although the Dhampir is of the Humanoid Type (and Dhampir Subtype), and it is a living/breathing creature, it is treated as undead for the purposes of positive and negative energy, because of the Dhampir's Negative Energy Affinity (NEA).
Example: 5 Humans, a Dhampir, and a Zombie walk into a bar.
Cleric channels to heal. Dhampir and Zombie are unaffected, while the Humans are healed.
Cleric channels to harm. Dhampir and Zombie are harmed, while the Humans are unaffected.
|
|
there is one situation which the cleric, can heal the party and harm undead with the same channel. The repose subdomain, does half damage to any undead in the radius of the channel as well as healing his/her allies.
However you will find that most clerics will take selective channeling to avoid healing the "bad" guys. In the case of your Dhampir character in the burst, if they are incapable of of doing the best for the party... strictly speaking. Its the role of the healer to heal... and i would not rule it PVP unless they went out of there way to channel around you.
Also, its a good idea to inform the party of your "healing" issue.
Hotcauceman, every time a cleric channels positive energy, she does so to either heal the living or harm the undead. She doesn't get to do both with the same blast.
As long as she's trying to heal her companions, she will neither heal nor harm the dhampir. If she tries to channel positive energy to harm undead, he's a viable target.
A lot of folks who are used to older editions of D&D seem to be unaware that Pathfinder changed this aspect of channeling.
-j
|
Many people interpret the PvP rule to mean that you can not allow your PC in any way to bring harm to another PC. Some even claim that withholding healing from a party member is PvP.
The actual text of the rule is on page 19 of the Guide under the "No Player-versus-Player Combat" section. There is a little more expository but the rule is basically:
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is
forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
The rule is not about harming or causing a little damage to a PC. It just forbids you to voluntarily kill another player's character.
The rule is not as restrictive as a lot of people think because there are times when doing a little harm to another character is in everyone's best interest. And it could allow a jerk player to prevent another from using their character effectively by just being in the way all the time.
For cases of one player using their PC to annoy another player, that's when the GM should enforce the "Don't be a Jerk" rule - which is also left purposely vague to allow the GM room to interpret it as needed.
Jason, by "older editions of D&D" do you mean the Pathfinder Beta test? I admit to being ignorant of how AD&D, or D&D 3rd Edition, dealt with channeling energy.
I think the general reason for the confusion is that people understand channeling as a burst of positive/negative energy, which intuitively should affect everything in the area - basically like an area version of the cure/inflict spells.
From what I remember edition-wise:
In 3.5, clerics did not have Channeling - they had the ability to turn undead or rebuke undead. This was alignment dependent, and was similar (though not the same) as the Pathfinder Turn Undead and Command Undead - it wasn't really save-based, since there were one or two separate charts to figure out how many Hit Dice of undead you affected.
It looks like in Pathfinder Beta, turn/rebuke undead was replaced with Channeling which could both heal and harm, and could apply the turn/rebuke feat effects on undead. Then in the final version of Pathfinder, the heal/harm was split up so that a negative energy channeling cleric backed by undead couldn't heal his undead and blast the party, and the turn/rebuke was removed and made into feats.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer, they should ask before hitting you with an AOE, and you should try to be accommodating to their tactics if possible. It's really a simple matter of not being a jerk, and being considerate of other people at the table.
This situation comes up frequently with my Negative Energy Channeling Cleric. He does have Selective Channeling, and a reasonably high charisma score, but there have been lots of times where I can't exclude everybody. Common reasons are 1) a party member is stealthed and I can't see them to exclude them or 2) I happen to be grouping with a lot of players with animal companions/familiars and I can't exclude all of them.
It's never really a big deal. I just point it out to the person who's going to get nuked by my channel and let them know it's going to happen and that I'll fix them up later. If they have something that's likely to get killed by my channel, I'll either not do a channel at all or exclude them in favor of someone else (that being said, I also have channel force so I can usually avoid people by using a channel line or a channel cone instead). Sometimes they offer an alternative option, too!
People are almost universally understanding about it in my experience. It's just a matter of talking about it first to make sure everybody's cool with it. Just try to avoid putting people in a position where they constantly get blasted with your AOEs.
Example: 5 Humans, a Dhampir, and a Zombie walk into a bar.
Cleric channels to heal. Dhampir and Zombie are unaffected, while the Humans are healed.
Cleric channels to harm. Dhampir and Zombie are harmed, while the Humans are unaffected.
For the sake of clarity, this is channeling positive energy.
Hotcauceman, every time a cleric channels positive energy, she does so to either heal the living or harm the undead. She doesn't get to do both with the same blast.
Interestingly enough, Death's Embrace (8th level Death Domain) is a cool ability where Cleric/Inquisitor gets healed from any form of channeled negative energy (including Inflict X Wounds and harm (lulz)) regardless of whether it was designated to heal or harm. That's about the only way you can gain a healing benefit from a harming channel.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Acedio's credit, he's a very reasonable player. The rare times someone isn't cool with taking damage from the channel, he does something else.
He's also happy to include PCs in the damage of a Channel Force if they so choose. It's a great way to move your barbarian around the battlefield if you don't mind taking a handful of d6 in damage.
|
|
While we're on the subject of PvP, how should I handle it when PC's are responding to a confused/mind controlled PC. This past week I was running a scenario where a party member was hit by an effect that caused them to be confused, but requires them to attack another party member for a round or two. One of the other PC's wanted to sunder the confused character's weapon and deal the confused character a pretty sizable amount of damage. I asked him if that was really what he wanted to do, and he still wanted to at least break the other PC's weapon. I ended up not allowing the sunder of the other PC's gear, but am not too sure about the decision. Can I get someone else's take on the situation?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Many people interpret the PvP rule to mean that you can not allow your PC in any way to bring harm to another PC. Some even claim that withholding healing from a party member is PvP.
The actual text of the rule is on page 19 of the Guide under the "No Player-versus-Player Combat" section. There is a little more expository but the rule is basically:
The rule is not about harming or causing a little damage to a PC. It just forbids you to voluntarily kill another player's character.In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is
forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Hi, Don.
I haven't run into a situation where Player A sends his character into the fray and then refuses to let Character B set off an area effect. You imply you have, and so we're coming at this from different perspectives. It may also be that folks out in New England play with different expectations than the northern plains.
I have sat at a high-tier table where a player announced that his sorcerer was casting an empowered burning hands, not realizing that the ranger he caught in the area was already seriously injured. (He rolled very well and took the ranger down to single hit points. The ranger went down the next round, because of that damage. He only survived because he rolled a natural "20" on his final stabilization.)
Now, in that case, the burning hands didn't kill the ranger. It didn't even knock him into negatives. And the ranger did survive. So, as i understand your position, you'd be okay with that.
I have watched a negative-energy channeling cleric of Gorum choose to let loose with a blast that killed a PC witch's familiar. ("I couldn't exclude you both.") This was early in the adventure, and the witch did not get to renew spells for the next day. (Oh, and the cleric didn't see a need to pony up for the familiar's raise dead.)
I wasn't running either of those tables, but if I were, I wouldn't have allowed either attack without the PC victim's consent. There's no way to tell, ahead of time, whether the attack is going to roll high damage, or the victim is going to be caught in a tight bind later, etc. etc. Just don't damage other PCs without getting the victim's player's buy-in.
Don, you suggest that the "Don't be a jerk" rule could be appplied. It's much easier to deny a decision that would harm another player, than to decide in the middle of a session who is being what percent of a jerk, and ejecting the jerkier player from the table.
|
|
Yes it is.... I am not sure why the question though?
It's probably because what NEA actually says and how PFS interprets it are nearly opposite. Or rather, Paizo didn't seem to understand how Channeling worked when they converted NEA to PF, and assumed it worked a different way that what it acally says, both originally and after the revisions.
For example, if a Cleric channels to heal the living, (which also means Positive Energy), the Dhampir, (a living target) would be hit, but because of NEA, would actually be harmed.
Said Cleric attempting to harm the dead would not affect the Dhampir, who is a living target that reacts to Positive and Negative Energy are harm as if they where undead (that is, they are healed by negative and harmed by positive, like an undead, but are not actually treated as a different creature type for any reason).
|
|
Hi, Don.
I haven't run into a situation where Player A sends his character into the fray and then refuses to let Character B set off an area effect. You imply you have, and so we're coming at this from different perspectives. It may also be that folks out in New England play with different expectations than the northern plains.
Chris,
I've reread my post a few times. A post I purposely tried to write in a neutral voice. It was not my intent to make that implication. The "many" people I refer to is based mostly on what I've read on these boards. Yes, there have been a small number of times when I've been at a table with a "no, you can't do that because it will harm my PC" player, but those incidents were resolved cordially IIRC.
I've experienced some strong reactions to posts I've made in the past year or two, reactions that were a surprise to me. When I thought I was making a helpful comment or stating a personal opinion that was not meant to come across as threatening, it sometimes resulted in a very strong reaction. And at least once I let my emotions get the better of me and I made a very short public comment that never should have been made. So please forgive me if there was any misunderstanding with my post.
I think our perspectives are more similar than not. See below.
I have sat at a high-tier table where a player announced that his sorcerer was casting an empowered burning hands, not realizing that the ranger he caught in the area was already seriously injured. (He rolled very well and took the ranger down to single hit points. The ranger went down the next round, because of that damage. He only survived because he rolled a natural "20" on his final stabilization.)
Now, in that case, the burning hands didn't kill the ranger. It didn't even knock him into negatives. And the ranger did survive. So, as i understand your position, you'd be okay with that.
In that situation, as the GM, I personally would not allow the Burning Hands if the Ranger's player wasn't okay with it. And I'd cite the "Don't be a Jerk" rule to back me up. At my tables and most that I've seen in the Northeast, it is common courtesy to ask before taking an action that could harm another PC.
I have watched a negative-energy channeling cleric of Gorum choose to let loose with a blast that killed a PC witch's familiar. ("I couldn't exclude you both.") This was early in the adventure, and the witch did not get to renew spells for the next day. (Oh, and the cleric didn't see a need to pony up for the familiar's raise dead.)
I wasn't running either of those tables, but if I were, I wouldn't have allowed either attack without the PC victim's consent. There's no way to tell, ahead of time, whether the attack is going to roll high damage, or the victim is going to be caught in a tight bind later, etc. etc. Just don't damage other PCs without getting the victim's player's buy-in.
Don, you suggest that the "Don't be a jerk" rule could be appplied. It's much easier to deny a decision that would harm another player, than to decide in the middle of a session who is being what percent of a jerk, and ejecting the jerkier player from the table.
The "Don't be a Jerk" rule is on page 5 of the current PFS Guide under the section titled "The Core Assumption." It is basically the complete first paragraph. The part that applies to this discussion follows.
While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.
Under the current rules, I believe DbaJ is more applicable here than the actual text of PvP.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it is.... I am not sure why the question though?It's probably because what NEA actually says and how PFS interprets it are nearly opposite. Or rather, Paizo didn't seem to understand how Channeling worked when they converted NEA to PF, and assumed it worked a different way that what it acally says, both originally and after the revisions.
For example, if a Cleric channels to heal the living, (which also means Positive Energy), the Dhampir, (a living target) would be hit, but because of NEA, would actually be harmed.
Said Cleric attempting to harm the dead would not affect the Dhampir, who is a living target that reacts to Positive and Negative Energy are harm as if they where undead (that is, they are healed by negative and harmed by positive, like an undead, but are not actually treated as a different creature type for any reason).
This is very much incorrect. Negative energy affinity says to treat the Dhampir as if it were an undead creature when dealing with positive or negative energy. This means that a channel to heal the living wouldn't have any effect at all on the dhampir... it's being treated as undead. A channel to harm undead would absolutely hurt a dhampir. Likewise, a channel negative to heal undead would heal him, and a channel negative to harm the living wouldn't touch him.
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
|
3.x had Turn or Rebuke Undead, which mentioned channeling either positive or negative energy.
Yea, but thats not really the same, since it didnt heal or deal HP damage. :/
While, strictly speaking, Turn Undead was not precisely the same as Channeling, as early in 3rd Edition as "Defenders of the Faith", there was a section specifically entitled "Channeling" (p.16) which dealt directly with the using Turn Undead for other purposes, and the Divine Feats that became popular for that reason.
Further, the prerequisite for those feats was defined as:...the ability to channel positive or negative energy to turn or rebuke undead.
This same wording carried over into Complete Divine in the 3.5 Edition.
I think the largest difference is that once Pathfinder came around was that Channeling became the default, and not Turning. It's sort of a semantic difference, since they're described as being mostly synonymous, but, there've been vast improvements in the ways Channeling can be used, and it's now a viable option to be a cleric, and not be a heal-bot....
But, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion about PvP. Sorry for the derailment, if any.
|
|
The truth.I can't favorite your post enough. So many people interpret NEA incorrectly, when it's really so simple.
The real issue is that, even with the FAQ, NEA is treated in an extremely counterintuitive manner.
In other words, it is not simple, it is not clear, and it is about as transparent as the bottom of the bayou.
See, some of us interpreted it as negative to affect living, and positive to afect living, as compared to having a non-undead creature affected, against the basic rules of the game, as if they were undead in all respects, which I think that FAQ says that they are, now.
Which also leads into the law of unintended consequences, where a living creature can now be controlled via Command Undead, which I still don't think was th eoriginal intention.
But, it is a dead equine, even though it was killed by a stake to the left forehoof instead of a knife to the heart.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The truth.I can't favorite your post enough. So many people interpret NEA incorrectly, when it's really so simple.The real issue is that, even with the FAQ, NEA is treated in an extremely counterintuitive manner.
In other words, it is not simple, it is not clear, and it is about as transparent as the bottom of the bayou.
See, some of us interpreted it as negative to affect living, and positive to afect living, as compared to having a non-undead creature affected, against the basic rules of the game, as if they were undead in all respects, which I think that FAQ says that they are, now.
Which also leads into the law of unintended consequences, where a living creature can now be controlled via Command Undead, which I still don't think was th eoriginal intention.
But, it is a dead equine, even though it was killed by a stake to the left forehoof instead of a knife to the heart.
You're right, and GMs should take advantage of this with dhampir characters, in my opinion. It's one of the risks of playing a partially-undead creature... an evil Cleric could totally command you.
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
Dhampirs are not undead, they are a living creature
|
|
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
Dhampirs are not undead, they are a living creature
This is the incorrect way to look at it.
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
Dhampirs are not undead, they are a living creature
This is how you need to look at it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's interesting to imagine what the Healing Domain's "Rebuke Death" domain ability does to an unconscious dhampir. It doesn't heal him. But undead "die" at 0 hit points, so they're never at a negative hit point score. So, as I understand it, "rebuke death" would have no effect on an unconscious dhampir at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting to imagine what the Healing Domain's "Rebuke Death" domain ability does to an unconscious dhampir. It doesn't heal him. But undead "die" at 0 hit points, so they're never at a negative hit point score. So, as I understand it, "rebuke death" would have no effect on an unconscious dhampir at all.
Hm, not sure about that.
Rebuke Death (Sp): You can touch a living creature as a standard action, healing it for 1d4 points of damage plus 1 for every two cleric levels you possess. You can only use this ability on a creature that is below 0 hit points. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
The only caveat is that it works on a living creature with negative hit points. It is possible for a Dhampir to meet both of these requirements. Additionally, the language on Rebuke Death does not state it is positive energy. I would make the argument that RAW, Rebuke Death would work on a Dhampir with negative hit points.
Edit: Removed bit about justifying that dhampir being able to have negative hit points; i misunderstood your post.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
It's interesting to imagine what the Healing Domain's "Rebuke Death" domain ability does to an unconscious dhampir. It doesn't heal him. But undead "die" at 0 hit points, so they're never at a negative hit point score. So, as I understand it, "rebuke death" would have no effect on an unconscious dhampir at all.Hm, not sure about that.
Rebuke Death (Sp): You can touch a living creature as a standard action, healing it for 1d4 points of damage plus 1 for every two cleric levels you possess. You can only use this ability on a creature that is below 0 hit points. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.The only caveat is that it works on a living creature with negative hit points. It is possible for a Dhampir to meet both of these requirements. Additionally, the language on Rebuke Death does not state it is positive energy. I would make the argument that RAW, Rebuke Death would work on a Dhampir with negative hit points.
Edit: Removed bit about justifying that dhampir being able to have negative hit points; i misunderstood your post.
Yeah, since Rebuke Death doesn't have an option for targeting an undead creature, I would think you still treat the Dhampir as a living creature. If that ability could target undead creatures and harm them normally, it would harm the dhampir.
|
As for the positive energy thing or not. SKR had a really good post that I've linked to before, but can't currently as on phone, that explains how these things work.
Just because it doesn't say it specifically, healing powers are typically positive energy and would affect a Dhampyr as such.
So a Dhampyr paladin could not lay on hands himself.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Interestingly enough, an open-minded reading of lay on hands could lead some ambiguity to it's functionality regarding dhampir. I always assumed that playing a dhampir paladin would be a suicidal proposition if you wanted to use LOH on yourself. But if you look here...
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.
Bolding mine. "Alternatively, a paladin can"—they 'can.' If they have the option to do it, they must certainly have the option to not do it, right? That's why it's alternatively? What if a paladin can use LOH to either heal hit point damage or blast undead? A decision made when the LOH is used? Similar to channel energy?
I may be off base in my reasoning, but the wording (and lack of the words "positive energy") is eerily similar to Rebuke Death, which doesn't have a consensus on how it affects dhampir.
|
|
Interestingly enough, an open-minded reading of lay on hands could lead some ambiguity to it's functionality regarding dhampir. I always assumed that playing a dhampir paladin would be a suicidal proposition if you wanted to use LOH on yourself. But if you look here...
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.
Bolding mine. "Alternatively, a paladin can"—they 'can.' If they have the option to do it, they must certainly have the option to not do it, right? That's why it's alternatively? What if a paladin can use LOH to either heal hit point damage or blast undead? A decision made when the LOH is used? Similar to channel energy?
I may be off base in my reasoning, but the wording (and lack of the words "positive energy") is eerily similar to Rebuke Death, which doesn't have a consensus on how it affects dhampir.
There is always the LoH FAQ about if it is positive energy or not...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
There is always the LoH FAQ about if it is positive energy or not...Interestingly enough, an open-minded reading of lay on hands could lead some ambiguity to it's functionality regarding dhampir. I always assumed that playing a dhampir paladin would be a suicidal proposition if you wanted to use LOH on yourself. But if you look here...
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.
Bolding mine. "Alternatively, a paladin can"—they 'can.' If they have the option to do it, they must certainly have the option to not do it, right? That's why it's alternatively? What if a paladin can use LOH to either heal hit point damage or blast undead? A decision made when the LOH is used? Similar to channel energy?
I may be off base in my reasoning, but the wording (and lack of the words "positive energy") is eerily similar to Rebuke Death, which doesn't have a consensus on how it affects dhampir.
Well why didn't you mention that before I posted all this? :P