|
| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
another life shaman question
(yes, I intend to play one soon)
is this a bug or the difference is on purpose ?
.
.
SHAMAN:
Life Link (Su): The shaman creates a bond between herself and another creature within 30 feet. Each round at the start of the shaman’s turn, if the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer, it heals 5 hit points and the shaman takes 5 points of damage. The shaman can have one bond active per shaman level. The bond continues until the bonded creature dies, the shaman dies, the distance between her and the bonded creature exceeds 100 feet, or the shaman ends it as an immediate action. If the shaman has multiple bonds active, she can end as many as she wants with the same immediate action.
ORACLE:
Life Link (Su): As a standard action, you may create a bond between yourself and another creature. Each round at the start of your turn, if the bonded creature is wounded for 5 or more hit points below its maximum hit points, it heals 5 hit points and you take 5 hit points of damage. You may have one bond active per oracle level. This bond continues until the bonded creature dies, you die, the distance between you and the other creature exceeds medium range, or you end it as an immediate action (if you have multiple bonds active, you may end as many as you want as part of the same immediate action).
---
while the range difference does not bother me (medium-variable vs 100 feet-fixed)
the trigger of the hit point transfer renders the power of the shaman close to useless compared to the power of the oracle.
|
if the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer
I've read that several times and I'm still not sure.
"Reduced to -5 or fewer..." : what would this mean?
"Reduced to -5 or more..." : what would this mean?
Would those mean the same thing? It could be that the writer meant -5 or fewer indicates that it has been reduced a "fewer amount" (gud English), so a creature at -4 has been "reduced fewer" that one at -5 and it would still kick in. Thus, the writing is meant to show the link severs at -5 or more.
It's certainly weird English, and I'd wager it's intentional since they deviated from an existing similar ability.
|
|
Parsing the best way I can:
Life Oracle: Is target hurt for more than 5 HP? Yes, they heal 5 HP, you lose 5 HP.
Shaman: Is target hurt? They heal 5 HP and you lose 5 HP. Are they at -6 HP or more? They do not heal and you do not lose HP.
If the Life Oracle's case, you have a ceiling of when it operates (at least 5 damage) but no floor. In the Shaman's case, there is no ceiling but there is a floor (-5 HP or fewer).
If that is not the intent, the Devs should definitely clarify. Because if the Shaman's life link is only meant to work at -6, -7, -8 and beyond, it has become a super niche stabilization ability that will most likely not be chosen by most players.
Looking for an answer to this as well. It will decide if it is worth taking or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where the room for misinterpretation is here. It's simple mathematical phrasing.
"if the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer"
There is no relationship to maximum HP. The text references a specific hit point value, -5.
Is the creature at -4 hit points or greater? (0, 20, max?) No healing occurs.
Is the creature at -5, -6, -7 hit points or fewer? You lose 5 HP and they gain 5 HP. Yes, this will never heal a creature above 0 HP. Yes, it's incredibly niche and much weaker than the life oracle ability. But the wording is very clear. This is a very specific change to the ability in the playtest, which used the same wording as the oracle revelation.
I'm not sure where the room for misinterpretation is here. It's simple mathematical phrasing.
"if the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer"
There is no relationship to maximum HP. The text references a specific hit point value, -5.
Is the creature at -4 hit points or greater? (0, 20, max?) No healing occurs.
Is the creature at -5, -6, -7 hit points or fewer? You lose 5 HP and they gain 5 HP. Yes, this will never heal a creature above 0 HP. Yes, it's incredibly niche and much weaker than the life oracle ability. But the wording is very clear. This is a very specific change to the ability in the playtest, which used the same wording as the oracle revelation.
Agreed
Let's re-evaluate what each bolded subject means:
if the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer
Self-explanatory, really. When a creature's hit points are reduced to an amount equal to or less than -5, it can be healed 5 hit points. This goes for any attack that may hurt him. It moreso poses a question as to whether it can work as a "ghetto" Breath of Life spell, but that's for another thread.
if the bonded creature is wounded for 5 or more hit points below its maximum hit points
An interesting change of subject matter. This actually allows a creature to be healed within a set range of hit points, instead of being near death as above. Of course, by RAW this healing doesn't occur if the damage inflicted equates to X-4 or higher, where X is the target's maximum hit points.
So if a PC has 24 hit points, and gets power attacked for 20 damage, which falls into the X-4 (24-4) fallacy, by RAW the Life Link ability does not work for the given attack.
That being said, I think the Devs wanted to add some variability to each version of the abilities. Additionally, consider that an Oracle gets a less frequent influx of Revelations in comparison to a Witch. (I don't know how it is for a Shaman yet. Hopefully when they get the ACG info on the SRD I can actually know what's what.)
They should have named it differrently. Life Bond of something. :(
Combing in the abilities by having one of each class working in tandem would be pretty epic.
|
|
note that while I mostly understand how they work on the individual basis, I'm curious on why such a difference.
they mention for the shaman class : "should you ever get a mistery, you must pick the same than your spirit"
lots of other life Hex are exactly similar to life revelation (name and function)
eg . enhance cure, ...
so why the difference in life link ?
I was hoping it's a mistake and life link should work as the oracle one
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would still argue that both abilities are meant to work exactly the same. The way I read is like this...
If the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer (as in, if the bonded creature hit points are reduced by -5 damage or more) then this ability activates.
Its fuzzy English, I know, but that seems to be the intent in my opinion (especially since they are basing it off of the life link oracle revelation).
Also, keep in mind that -6 is 'fewer' then -5 (which is why I contend that the intent of this ability is to function exactly like the revelation).
I would still argue that both abilities are meant to work exactly the same. The way I read is like this...
If the bonded creature’s hit points are reduced to –5 or fewer (as in, if the bonded creature hit points are reduced by -5 damage or more) then this ability activates.
Its fuzzy English, I know, but that seems to be the intent in my opinion (especially since they are basing it off of the life link oracle revelation).
Also, keep in mind that -6 is 'fewer' then -5 (which is why I contend that the intent of this ability is to function exactly like the revelation).
You want to play one, get your DM to agree. Game breaking, nope, is it RAI, probably, is it RAW NOPE, not even close what you are trying.
Stark did a litteral translation, and did it well, that is RAW, do I think the ACG uses a ton of bad language and copy paste effects, signs the different chapters were done with different teams, etc but that does not mean we should change rules to fit a character. Or does it.
YMMV
|
You guys are totally over-thinking this. There's no need to parse convoluted grammar. The Life Shaman version obviously works just like the Life Oracle version. It's unfortunate that the writer slightly altered the wording. This was probably done for stylistic reasons, because writers are allergic to duplicate copy/paste text.
I really wish Paizo adopted a more streamlined editing process.
There really shouldn't be different wordings for the same effect because it can be ambiguous and lead to confusion. An individual author's writing style shouldn't be visible in rules text. Flavor text, sure, but not the nuts and bolts of the game.
I would love to see them hire or create a small team of editors who's sole job is to make sure everything in the game is written in the exact same language and that every archetype, feat, item, etc, works within the rules as written. A development team, I guess. That would be great.
I know they are apples and oranges, but why don't more tabletop design companies follow in M:tG's footsteps when it comes to philosophy and team structure. They have learned a lot from their previous mistakes and are one of (if not the) best in the business.
Magda, I don't believe I am over thinking anything, I read what that shaman gets and that's what springs to mind. Would I change it for my home game, sure, life link is weak as hell anyway. But does it say what you all want it to say, no it does not. As I said, RAW it is to save you from leaking out when negative HP's, per RAI it may be more like a life oracle.
There is no DM approval needed to use this ability just like the oracle life link mystery. The wording is almost identical in every regard, the ability is named the same, and to me the intent is very clear. In fact, I'd also like to bring up something that Sean Reynolds said as well...
Basically in a nutshell, here is what he says: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Its a good general rule to consider the intent of something and the context of what it does. For me, this is pretty clear cut. Are there a few 'minor differences' in the wording? Sure. But is the ability virtually the same? Yes (right down to the friggin name in fact). If a dev would like to confirm this I'd be grateful, but as it stands, the intent seems to imply that they both work exactly the same.
|
|
Magda, I don't believe I am over thinking anything, I read what that shaman gets and that's what springs to mind. Would I change it for my home game, sure, life link is weak as hell anyway. But does it say what you all want it to say, no it does not. As I said, RAW it is to save you from leaking out when negative HP's, per RAI it may be more like a life oracle.
Take a deep breath, clear your mind of minutiae, and look it over again. Sure, a pedantic reading of the exact words can yield the meaning you pull from the text. But that's OBVIOUSLY not the intention, and is also not the only way to interpret the RAW. A pedant who looks hard enough can find such flaws throughout the system.
-- "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu
The duck test runs into some problems when used with Pathfinder. Vital Strike and Charge is a good example - Vital Strike functions on an attack action, Charge is a full action that combines a double move and an attack. Going by the duck test Vital Strike and Charge should function together, RAI however we know it does not.
For what it's worth, I find it extremely puzzling that whoever wrote the Shaman Life Link didn't simply borrow the language from the life oracle ability like they did with enhanced cures if they were meant to work the same way.
For what it's worth, I find it extremely puzzling that whoever wrote the Shaman Life Link didn't simply borrow the language from the oracle ability if they were meant to work the same way.
Especially because it DID use that wording in the playtest. As I said above, this is a clear instance where the ability was nerfed.