| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The emotion component for Psychic Spells explains that whenever a caster is under the effects of a non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear Descriptor they can't provide the emotion component.
A friend has suggested that this means Intimidate, which causes the shaken condition, can shut down psychic spellcasting.
Is this true? My understanding is that the shaken condition itself lacks an actual "Fear Descriptor" and does not actually invoke this clause in the Emotion Component.
I think the bigger problem is the thought component which if RAW can be a real detriment to any melee psychic caster.
Frightening Presence becomes much more...... frightening...
Think of it as the nasty price that psychics have to pay instead of arcane magic's armor problem or divine magic's dependence-on-a-higher-power problem.
I think I'd call psychic's problem much, much more debilitating considering most arcane users get hours per level armor equivalence as a 1st level spell (or can just buy and enchant a haramaki) and the divine caster's "problem" is pretty much a non-issue beyond RP.
|
Think of it as the nasty price that psychics have to pay instead of arcane magic's armor problem or divine magic's dependence-on-a-higher-power problem.I think I'd call psychic's problem much, much more debilitating considering most arcane users get hours per level armor equivalence as a 1st level spell (or can just buy and enchant a haramaki) and the divine caster's "problem" is pretty much a non-issue beyond RP.
You might have a point about the former, but the latter simply shouldn't be true - or rather, to imply "it's just RP" as though that makes it not a "real" issue is tantamount to undermining the entire concept of the game. It IS a real issue. It's called an RPG for a reason.
You might have a point about the former, but the latter simply shouldn't be true - or rather, to imply "it's just RP" as though that makes it not a "real" issue is tantamount to undermining the entire concept of the game. It IS a real issue. It's an RPG.Think of it as the nasty price that psychics have to pay instead of arcane magic's armor problem or divine magic's dependence-on-a-higher-power problem.I think I'd call psychic's problem much, much more debilitating considering most arcane users get hours per level armor equivalence as a 1st level spell (or can just buy and enchant a haramaki) and the divine caster's "problem" is pretty much a non-issue beyond RP.
My point is that in terms of game mechanics your spells coming from a divine source is meaningless in most circumstances unless your DM decides that God of Goodness X is pissed that you burned down an orphanage and revoked your powers. It doesn't come up really and if it does it is pretty much DM interpretation that makes it happen and your own RP, not a codified ruling. That is in a different league than the "Arcane casters may lose their spells if they wear armor" and compared to "Anyone can shut off my class features with a successful skill check with a fairly low DC?" Man, that ain't even the same sport.
|
At least one of the Psychic options makes it completely immune to fear. They also have a strong Will save and as a full caster, are completely capable of investing heavily in things that boost Will saves (like getting an Int+Wis headband instead of just an Int headband, and the obvious cloak of resistance, plus any other items they can find).
It's not a non-issue, but it's a minor one at best.
Intimidate doesn't use Will saves. It's simply against a straight DC depending on the targets HD and WIS (10+HD+WIS) (which is usually on par or better than Will save).
|
|
@chaoseffect: You're making it sound like that isn't a bedrock element of the game, though, which it is. There's this fallacy epidemic of thinking in terms of a "rules VS roleplay" dichotomy, when in fact they're meant to be integrated - it's a "using-both-halves-of-your-brain" way of thinking that makes D&D/Pathfinder distinctive and valuable even among other RPGs.
Getting back on topic, I will say that the ugliest snag I can see from this is that Psychics whose Phrenic Pool is grounded in Charisma are at a severe disadvantage against those grounded in Wisdom. It would be okay if Charisma-based Disciplines were slightly more powerful overall than the Wisdom-based, but I don't believe that's the case.
It also gets in the way of playing the "Insane/Tormented Psychic" archetype, who'd have a low Wisdom.
I sympathize with the latter bit, but it's the former I take issue with. A Cleric's relationship with their deity IS a rule of the game. Just because it isn't codified in black-and-white text doesn't mean it isn't "real." That's not how this game is meant to work. The fantasy world is REAL when you play the game, and the codified mechanics, while critical, are secondary. The whole "rules-VS-roleplaying" dichotomy isn't supposed to exist; it's meant to be fundamentally integrated, a "both-halves-of-your-brain" way of thinking that's a large part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder distinctive even among tabletop games.
I agree with you that it is part of the game, but as a roleplaying element that means it is open to endless interpretation and table variance to the point that it is pretty much pointless to try to discuss in a rules situation unless you are in the same game. On the other hand, there aren't many hard and fast rules that screw divine casters just for being divine casters, as opposed to the slap on the wrist arcane casters get and the knife in the guy psychics apparently receive. Divine casters only get penalized if the player, the one who personally chose his characters mentality, personality, background, and affiliations, actively goes against all of that by their own choices and/or -insert "I'm the DM, how can I make my friend's PC fall? huehuehue" scenario here- occurs.
|
|
I agree with you that it is part of the game, but as a roleplaying element that means it is open to endless interpretation and table variance to the point that it is pretty much pointless to try to discuss in a rules situation unless you are in the same game.
Not entirely true, but partly true; however, my reaction to that would be to not talk about it in any context where you couldn't coherently discuss a bedrock element of the game's function, rather than start drawing conclusions en masse that only make sense if you leave that part out - a very concerning danger that the mostly-wonderful Internet poses to gaming and other quirky and esoteric pursuits.
Not entirely true, but partly true; however, my reaction to that would be to not talk about it in any context where you couldn't coherently discuss a bedrock element of the game's function, rather than start drawing conclusions en masse that only make sense if you leave that part out - a very concerning danger that the mostly-wonderful Internet poses to gaming and other quirky and esoteric pursuits.
I'm sorry but I'm not quite understanding you here. Could you rephrase if possible?
Here's a new question: It says non-harmless effects. What counts as harmless?
Here's a new question: It says non-harmless effects. What counts as harmless?
Spells with the harmless tag, i.e. effects that are buffs. Good Hope is an example of a harmless spell with the emotion descriptor.
Man, and Intimidate DCs are almost impossible to fail.
Er, wait, aren't descriptors only for spells?
I think I've got what I needed. The following is quoted from Core Rulebook.
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and
subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that
further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells
have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness,
death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good,
language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting,
sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by
themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts
with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual
creatures,
with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language
as a medium for communication. If the target cannot
understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent
spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures
with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
Here is the full quote of relevant lines for this topic:
"It is impossible to cast a spell with an emotion component while the spellcaster is under the influence of a non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear descriptor. (The emotion descriptor was originally introduced in Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic.)" Quoted from page 144 of Occult Adventures. Descriptor is bolded for emphasis by me.
The Emotion descriptor was introduced in Chapter 2 of that book. Specifically, the section on designing new spells.
The Fear and Emotion Descriptors are thus something that comes attached to spells. As Intimidate is not a spell, Shaken does not have the Fear Descriptor, which is separate (as in not the same) from a fear effect. Therefore only SPELLS or Spell-like abilities (the only things possessing the fear and emotion descriptors) can impede Psychic Spells with an emotion Component.
I apologize profusely for not doing proper research myself. I am deeply sorry.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate." - a recent FAQ
Intimidate is undoubtedly a fear effect, but I suppose strictly one could argue it still lacks the fear descriptor, thus is doesn't qualify for the issue at hand, but that seems a bit disingenuous.
The Fear and Emotion Descriptors are thus something that comes attached to spells. As Intimidate is not a spell, Shaken does not have the Fear Descriptor, which is separate (as in not the same) from a fear effect. Therefore only SPELLS or Spell-like abilities (the only things possessing the fear and emotion descriptors) can impede Psychic Spells with an emotion Component.I apologize profusely for not doing proper research myself. I am deeply sorry.
Because casters can't have drawbacks.
The emotion component is specific. It states that only effects with the fear descriptor impeded spells with the emotion component. Since intimidate lacks this descriptor, which is a specific and seperate object relating to spells, intimidate does not impede the casting of spells with the emotion descriptor, except perhaps for concentration checks.
So, Ectoplasmic residue (OA p.251): I know the DC is rather low.
It's a mind-affecting fear effect, but lacks the [fear]-descriptor. Does it shut down psychic casting with the E?
