| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, while looking over a few of the alternate drow racial traits, I discovered that the 'Seducer' trait ability is keyed off of wisdom to use the 'Charm Person' spell for some reason (my initial thought was that it keyed off Charisma). For anyone not familiar with the trait, here is what it does...
Seducer- Certain drow possess an innate understanding of the darkest desires that lurk in every heart. Drow with this racial trait add +1 to the saving throw DCs for spells and spell-like abilities of the enchantment school. In addition, drow with a Wisdom score of 15 or higher may use charm person once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equal to the drow's character level). This racial trait replaces drow immunities.
So, my question is this: was the 'seducer' ability meant to be keyed off of Charisma rather than Wisdom? I mean, that would seem to make the most sense, and I kinda hoping we can FAQ this if possible.
Drow entry, for the curious.
Good question, and FAQ'd - I do agree with the basic idea that "charm" seems more like a charisma based ability.
On one hand, it's certainly possible that it's an oversight, but the wording "possess an innate understanding" does, actually, lend itself towards wisdom, though on the other hand, the DC for suggestion in the drow noble entry "suggests" () that it's a charisma-based spell-like, meaning the charm person effect would be strange in that light. Yet on another hand, it's even more strange, as drow don't get a bonus to wisdom - something that doesn't pair up too well with creatures like, say, gnomes, who require a minimum score, but provide a bonus, as well, to that score, and usually innate spell-likes are keyed to charisma anyway. On yet one more hand () it could be an attempt at a balancing factor.
In any event, I'd suggest that this might be moved to the rules thread... though, I'm going to give a suggestion that a GM should probably tailor the availability (and keyed ability score, wisdom or charisma) to the player in question. That should flow nicely.
So, while looking over a few of the alternate drow racial traits, I discovered that the 'Seducer' trait ability is keyed off of wisdom to use the 'Charm Person' spell for some reason (my initial thought was that it keyed off Charisma). For anyone not familiar with the trait, here is what it does...
Seducer- Certain drow possess an innate understanding of the darkest desires that lurk in every heart. Drow with this racial trait add +1 to the saving throw DCs for spells and spell-like abilities of the enchantment school. In addition, drow with a Wisdom score of 15 or higher may use charm person once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equal to the drow's character level). This racial trait replaces drow immunities.
So, my question is this: was the 'seducer' ability meant to be keyed off of Charisma rather than Wisdom? I mean, that would seem to make the most sense, and I kinda hoping we can FAQ this if possible.
Not at all - the save DC for spell-like ability is Charisma-based. The trait just requires a Wisdsom score of 15 to pick the spell-like up. It's no different than the elves' Envoy racial trait or the lashtuna's Lashtuna Magic racial trait, both of which require Int scores of 11+, but provide access to spell-like abilities (all of which use Cha to determine saving throw DCs). No FAQing necessary - the precedent for this sort of racial trait is well established.
My problem is that the entire ability, save for that one little line about innate understanding, is completely flavored for Cha. Enchantment spells tend to be spells that affect, change, or otherwise effect your personality. While Charm Person is like the quintessential Cha spell.
Envoy grants Comprehend Languages, a pair of detection spells and Read Magic. Obviously the first and last are definitely intelligence spells, and an argument could easily be made that so are detection spells.
They may have made it key off Wisdom because Drow get a Charisma bonus, which would make it very easy to reap the extra benefit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi folks!
I am going to step out of the shadows and identify myself as the author of the trait and see if I can help!
First off, I'd like to say that I am a freelancer. I can speak to my reasons for the design and offer my opinion. Jason Bulmahn and Stephen Radney-McFarland are the governing authorities. If they decide to alter the trait, I will not be upset. Nor am I offended by anyone who questions the design and has asked for a FAQ. No hard feelings whatsoever. The freelancer and the Design Team are partners and any freelancer worth their salt should expect to have their design decisions questioned and even altered for the good of the game. We all continue to learn and grow with the game all the time.
That said, I've reviewed what I wrote and I stand by it. Now I'll answer some questions and explain my reasoning.
- Misprint or editing mistake?—No, the trait as you read it is what was intended. There's been no unintentional error here.
- This trait is probably too strong now without improvement—Traits are supposed to be half of one feat. I want you to bear in mind that there is no ability score requirement to take this trait. As you're considering the first sentence, I want you to compare it to the Spell Focus feat. This trait is actually doing everything a full bore feat allows you to do, except you're locked into applying it to the Enchantment school. Plus! You can also apply it to spell-like abilities. Plus! It stacks with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. That's generous for a start. Okay, let's look at the second sentence now. Compare just the second sentence alone to the Minor Spell Expertise feat in the Advanced Players Guide. My point is simply, the first sentence is a very nice trait for any drow character and the second sentence is a decent trait for some drow characters. Together they really equal to more than half of a trait. I know there are other concerns but this trait is hardly under-powered as it is. Even if you don't consider these to be true "traits" but racial abilities, I think you get a fair value for drow immunities (particularly since its optional).
- Wisdom Requirement versus Charisma—My intention was always to demonstrate and reward the Wisdom ability score as the aspect of understanding the nature of others. As exemplified by the Sense Motive skill. To know the mind of your object of seduction is to know their desires, their quirks, and their kinks. Those hidden things that thrill, excite, and lure one's sexual prey into the web of lust, dominance, and submission. To say it another way, to understand your target is an aspect of Wisdom. To interact with your target is an aspect of Charisma. This trait seeks to bridge those two concepts and permit them to work in concert with each other. And! I think I have made a compelling argument on why, even WITHOUT meeting the WIS 15 for the extra charm person daily SLA, you're still getting your bang for the buck out of this trait.
- Let's set aside the obvious and look at the campaign setting—I'm about to make some generalized statements. I'm saying up front that they're generalizations, and not absolutes. Male drow favor arcane classes and their personalities tend towards aggressive, militant, and direct confrontation. Female drow are usually in higher positions of authority and they're more inclined towards manipulation, politics, and social intrigue. They also favor divine spellcasting classes. So the gender group that is predisposed towards social intrigue also favors divine spellcasting, which often relies on the Wisdom modifier. Oh! But clerics don't get charm person?!? Well, now those conniving, manipulative, dark beauties can access the spell as a spell-like ability. I call that eight ball in the corner pocket. This was not accident. Does that leave the bard out in the cold? Yes. But a drow bard that must rely on this trait in order to seduce someone may have other issues. Again, let me stress, there are some generalizations taken for granted in this approach. I'm perfectly cool with male drow clerics who like to seduce people. As a freelancer, however, I am required to do my research. These roles are not genetic, they're cultural and canonical (and general). Articles in Second Darkness and the Darklands campaign setting book led me to these conclusions.
They may have made it key off Wisdom because Drow get a Charisma bonus, which would make it very easy to reap the extra benefit.
Bingo.
All these factors stated, I think this racial trait is fair and working as intended. If anything it leans towards being too good, not too weak. My recommendation is to leave it alone.
As a footnote, even without a WIS 15 ability modifier, this is a fine trait for a drow bard.
Any humor was intended to be light-hearted and not disrespectful. I welcome further discussion, however it might not be productive if *I* say too much more. (Sometimes a freelancer has to learn when to just leave a topic alone). I respectfully leave the Design Team to make whatever decision they see fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After sleeping on it, I wanted to add one quick thing.
The word "trait" is one of those crazy sound alike words that confounds the rule system sometimes. After consideration, the OP is referring to an optional race ability. One in which you trade for drow immunities. I was starting to make the point about traits being a half-a-feat, and while there is some validity to that.. the same level of parity does not exist with a racial ability.
I wanted to call that out before someone else does and uses it as a means to try to dismiss my point out-of-hand. I think my logic holds notwithstanding.
When it comes right down to it, I believe the seducer alternate racial ability is a fair trade for drow immunities. It may not be the best suited for all drow characters, but that's why it is optional.
Let's talk about why I made that trade-off. Thematically, by exploiting the desires of others, you open yourself up to the same kind of temptation. The struggle then becomes for you to always maintain control while bending and breaking the will of others. Also, mechanically, offensive bonuses are usually considered more valuable than defensive ones. This combined with the ability to stack with the Spell Focus feats, I still maintain this is fine the way it is.
I think I have said all I could! Thank you! Good luck with and to the Design Team!
After sleeping on it, I wanted to add one quick thing.
The word "trait" is one of those crazy sound alike words that confounds the rule system sometimes. After consideration, the OP is referring to an optional race ability. One in which you trade for drow immunities. I was starting to make the point about traits being a half-a-feat, and while there is some validity to that.. the same level of parity does not exist with a racial ability.
I wanted to call that out before someone else does and uses it as a means to try to dismiss my point out-of-hand. I think my logic holds notwithstanding.
When it comes right down to it, I believe the seducer alternate racial ability is a fair trade for drow immunities. It may not be the best suited for all drow characters, but that's why it is optional.
Let's talk about why I made that trade-off. Thematically, by exploiting the desires of others, you open yourself up to the same kind of temptation. The struggle then becomes for you to always maintain control while bending and breaking the will of others. Also, mechanically, offensive bonuses are usually considered more valuable than defensive ones. This combined with the ability to stack with the Spell Focus feats, I still maintain this is fine the way it is.
I think I have said all I could! Thank you! Good luck with and to the Design Team!
And this is why I love these forums :) Thanks again for the input. And while I understand and respect your reasoning, I must admit that I still wouldn't be opposed to the idea of changing the 'seducer' trait to key off Charisma rather than Wisdom. After all, drow oracles, cavaliers, and ninjas would certainly enjoy reaping these rewards (which reminds me...there REALLY needs to be a cavalier archetype that lets a drow ride a friggin spider).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the wisdom requirement. It calls to mind not only sense motive, but also the profession skill.
As in, this person's ability to manipulate people is not some innate talent born of natural magnetism, but instead it is a carefully and coldly calculated skill that allows them to have others eating out of their hands and licking their boots.
Essentially it brings to mind a dominatrix that is as jaded and pessimistic about ..'mortal'? 'humanoid?'...nature as the ranger going on about how "The only good orc is a dead orc". Bonus points to both since I can see them taking a long drag of a cigarette and then flicking it in some naive kid's face.
question:
was the 'seducer' ability meant to be keyed off of Charisma rather than Wisdom? I mean, that would seem to make the most sense, and I kinda hoping we can FAQ this if possible.
answer:
Certain drow possess an innate understanding of the darkest desires that lurk in every heart.
Understanding = wisdom
Those hidden things that thrill, excite, and lure one's sexual prey into the web of lust, dominance, and submission.
Is there anything in Pathfinder that presents lust in a positive non-exploitive/frivolous way? I get the flavor for Drow, although I'm not sure how much immortal elves would be relating to lust much at all. But, it seems with Calistria and her stinging wasps, lust is always treated as a sin. Personally, I think it can also be looked at as a virtue.
It is, after all, an expression of physical health. A healthy person will typically have a strong libido, especially when young.
I actually wrote up a new Pathfinder deity around this very concept. He is a god of health and male fertility. Charm is his primary domain (particularly focusing on Lust and Beauty). The path to holiness for him is to have a healthy athletic body that turns people on (and getting release). He's also a nudist. He's more of the hot young jock rather than the froufrou artsy Arshea type, although there is plenty of complexity in the write-up.
Well, Cayden isn't exactly what I'd call a prude. And Calistria's lust aspect isn't really the sinful part of her—it's the vengeance that makes people beware.
As you already noticed it is not a race trait but a racial trait, which negates the whole "similar in power to half a feat" reasoning, it should rather be compared to similar abilities of other races. And comparing it to those the SLA part comes at too high a cost (regardless of whether it is keyed to wisdom or not).
You're trading drow immunities for a racial ability that is better than the Spell Focus (enchantment) feat, because it reproduces that benefit and it stacks with that actual feat. Plus, you're getting some portion of the Minor Spell Expertise feat, if you meet the prerequisite. Let me double check that you're reading this correctly? You DO NOT have to meet that Wisdom prerequisite in order to take this racial ability. Its a decent deal without a Wisdom 15 and with it?—it is a sweet deal.
There's nothing at all under-powered here in the slightest.
You guys arguing there is something wrong with this ability are overlooking one of the more powerful spellcasting feats, Spell Focus. Respectfully, I think you're fixating too much on this minor spell-like ability and missing the larger benefit.
The requirement of a score of 15 doesn't match similar abilities either, the usual formula is 10 + spell level similar to spell casting, and therefore it should be 11 in this case. (see for example Elven Envoy/Dreamspeaker, Gnome Magic/Pyromaniac/Fell Magic). Other racial abilities that grant SLAs are missing such a requirement completely (e.g., Aasimar, Tiefling, Duergar).
In good faith, I looked at your examples. Elven Envoy has a prerequisite of 15. In fact, eleven envoy is a perfect example of parallel design with the drow! The gnome is different I grant you, but so what? Its giving out a first level SLA and a bunch of cantrips. I can see an argument for raising the gnome's prerequisite, not lowering the drow's.
As for races that don't have prerequisites, the aasimar's spell-like abilities granted by alternate racial abilities are all passive resistance type spells. Not offensive spells like the example of the elves, drow, and the gnomes. The tiefling only has one and it grants deathwatch.
I'm drawing your attention to the fact that racial abilities that grant SLAs and also have prerequisites tend to be those where the spell is of an offensive nature vs a self-buff, a light source spell, or a minor resistance.
To me this argument doesn't make too much sense, charm person, outside of any domain spell lists, does not even have a divine version. It is a bard/sorc/wiz/witch spell, hence it should be either Int or Cha.
It's a spell-like ability not a spell. All this about bard/sorc/wiz/witch/domain does not even factor.
I will grant you this, it should say that CHA is used to calculate the save DC. That's a genuine oversight, but the prerequisite does not have to be the same attribute/ability that is used to determine the save.
My reasonings again: The male drow are typically aggressive and militant, whereas the female drow are manipulative and cunning. Males favor arcane magic and females favor divine magic. Those are not hard fast stereotypes, there is certainly room for variations, but those are predisposed characteristics. This alternate racial ability opens up the 1st level charm person spell to characters with a moderately high wisdom score (like clerics, a common drow class).
That's a good thing.
Now, if someone wants to go over my head, that's cool. I just hope the staff person who does looks at it from all angles. I maintain there is nothing to fix here. Working as intended.
Those hidden things that thrill, excite, and lure one's sexual prey into the web of lust, dominance, and submission.Is there anything in Pathfinder that presents lust in a positive non-exploitive/frivolous way? I get the flavor for Drow, although I'm not sure how much immortal elves would be relating to lust much at all.
In fairness (to me), I cannot speak for all of Pathfinder. You mentioned that you understood the flavor for the Drow? Well, I was only speaking in that context and no other.
I appreciate your point however, and it is well made. :)
Well, Cayden isn't exactly what I'd call a prude.
My impression is that drunkenness, one of the "Seven Deadly Sins" is his main focus. The deity I created opposes drunkenness because it's bad for one's health.
Plus, my experience at a university suggests that drunkenness is frequently a coping mechanism for not being able to deal with lust in a healthy manner.
And Calistria's lust aspect isn't really the sinful part of her—it's the vengeance that makes people beware.
It all seems tied together, such as with the wasp's stinger that can sting again and again...
Lust seems to be presented as a vice in both cases.
I like the wisdom requirement. It calls to mind not only sense motive, but also the profession skill.
I wish I had been smart enough to use this example. Good job.
As in, this person's ability to manipulate people is not some innate talent born of natural magnetism, but instead it is a carefully and coldly calculated skill that allows them to have others eating out of their hands and licking their boots.
Delightfully well put.
Essentially it brings to mind a dominatrix that is as jaded and pessimistic about ..'mortal'? 'humanoid?'...nature as the ranger going on about how "The only good orc is a dead orc". Bonus points to both since I can see them taking a long drag of a cigarette and then flicking it in some naive kid's face.
Wonderful. :)
Philosophically speaking, love is a selfless emotion whereas lust is a selfish one - you desire or covet something from another, be it pleasure or possession. Lust doesn't even speak to reciprocity. At best it's an appeal to our baser instincts, at worst an expression of desire to use rather than connect. I contend that all good springs from acts of selflessness while all evil comes from those which are inherently evil in nature.
Lust doesn't represent an act, like theft, which could under some circumstances be defended... it represents a state of mind, and a self-involved, exploitative one at that.
Not that I'm knocking it, of course.
Philosophically speaking, love is a selfless emotion whereas lust is a selfish one - you desire or covet something from another, be it pleasure or possession. Lust doesn't even speak to reciprocity. At best it's an appeal to our baser instincts, at worst an expression of desire to use rather than connect. I contend that all good springs from acts of selflessness while all evil comes from those which are inherently evil in nature.
Lust doesn't represent an act, like theft, which could under some circumstances be defended... it represents a state of mind, and a self-involved, exploitative one at that.
Not that I'm knocking it, of course.
That...is a rather simple approach.
Personally, I think that it can be hard to love a person, since we never have a full understanding of their inner self. So in the end, you are in love with the image of that person that you created in your mind.
Of course, all human interaction works like that, so it is something that we struggle with, and with a bit of perspective we can come out the better for it. I personally view love as an attempt to accept something as a part of an acceptable reality (this kind of covers things like 'I love pizza' as well). If you can accept an aspect of another individual, it is the first step towards accepting aspects outside your world view. If you manage to do that, then your world has grown a little bigger, and isn't that a good thing?
But still, as individuals, we have to deal with the image of ourselves that serves as the image we are trying to send out into the world. Even a 'selfless' act has a price, if only to reassure the person doing it that they are a 'selfless person'. Thus, good springs from this selfish desire to bolster this person's view of themselves. Not that I blame such individuals, since I believe that the assumption of such a mask is the first step towards making your 'act' into 'reality'.
'Reality' is built upon the shared perceptions of the individuals that experience it. If you believe that we should all act selflessly, and everyone around you believes and acts upon the same conviction, then isn't this a selfless world? So, I suppose the price tag on a good deed is a step towards a world that better fits your tastes.
....now how to work this back into dominatrix drow priestesses....
Philosophically speaking, love is a selfless emotion whereas lust is a selfish one - you desire or covet something from another, be it pleasure or possession. Lust doesn't even speak to reciprocity. At best it's an appeal to our baser instincts, at worst an expression of desire to use rather than connect. I contend that all good springs from acts of selflessness while all evil comes from those which are inherently evil in nature..
Altruism cannot be proven to exist. Or, if it can, it may not be an example of sanity.
The bit about "baser instincts" seems anachronistic. Also, lust is not unidirectional. It is usually about wanting to connect with someone else. Platonic love is not superior to sexual love.
Profession (oldest). At least, that's how I boil all of this down. ; )