| 89 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for psychic magic clearly state that ""
So I guess what I want to know is if the demoralize action of the Intimidate skill falls under this category. Seems to me there are plenty of effects that can cause the shaken condition, but don't necessarily have the "fear" descriptor.
Effects only have descriptors if they are effects of spells or spell-like-abilities that have descriptors. A "descriptor" is a specific trait of magic. As such only spells and spell-like-abilities with the fear or emotion descriptors count for preventing psychic magic.
This FAQ calls out the Intimidate skill as something separate from fear descriptors, saying they are both fear effects. I take this to mean that Intimidate does not shut down a psychic spellcaster, but it is a wee-bit splitting hairs when the idea of the restriction is that you are mentally assailed.
I don't know if I'm a fan of : Magically scared, can't cast spells. Regular scared, can cast spells. Especially since there are non-magical effects that can make you frightened or panicked that technically wouldn't limit spell casting, but a magical effect causing the shaken condition would.
I agree that it's weird, but it seems like the intent is one of balance. Demoralizing someone with Intimidate is super easy, and I imagine they didn't want psychic casters shut down just because an enemy put a few ranks in intimidate and knows how psychic magic works. The latter bit about knowledge is something most players are going to play as if they know, so psychic enemies are easily shut down by a balanced party where at least one person put a little into being intimidating. As opposed to arcane or divine magic, where you have to silence them or keep them from moving, both things that are hard to do physically in normal combat, but can be easier to do magically.
Intimidate/Demoralize is not a fear effect in its own right, but the shaken condition is; but is that the same thing as having the fear descriptor?
EDIT: It seems I'm wrong according to the FAQ. Intimidate is a mind-affecting fear effect simply by virtue of it granting the shaken condition to people. Still, something with a fear descriptor is clearly a fear effect, but does a fear effect always have the fear descriptor?
It absolutely has to have the fear descriptor in order to affect a psychic's spellcasting according to the RAW.
Intimidate has been ruled as both a Mind effect and a Fear effect.
So it looks like Demoralize shuts down emotion based psychic spells.
Edit: just saw that RD noted that in his last post.
Actually, I noted that, that might not be enough.
Being a fear effect doesn't necessarily mean it also carries the fear descriptor (though it likely does).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[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.
Ultimate Magic added a few extra descriptors, as well, but a descriptor is exclusive to spells. Intimidate does not have a descriptor because it is not a spell.
Unless that is being too narrow in the definition of "descriptor". Paizo uses the same words to mean different things a lot of times.
Lots of monsters have abilities that contain the phrase "This is a mind-affecting fear effect" but are not spells. It seems to me that is an effect with a fear descriptor and would shut down psychics.
Which probably means that Intimidate works too...?
Unless that is being too narrow in the definition of "descriptor". Paizo uses the same words to mean different things a lot of times.
Lots of monsters have abilities that contain the phrase "This is a mind-affecting fear effect" but are not spells. It seems to me that is an effect with a fear descriptor and would shut down psychics.
Which probably means that Intimidate works too...?
This is one area that Paizo has been remarkably consistent on. Just take a look at the Ultimate Magic chapter on designing spells.
If it's not a spell or emulating a specific spell, it does not have a descriptor. Adding a descriptor to Intimidate is a houserule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it seems weird to me that, for example, a cause fear spell shuts down psychics but a yeth hound's bite doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Magic added a few extra descriptors, as well, but a descriptor is exclusive to spells. Intimidate does not have a descriptor because it is not a spell.[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.
By that logic, the stacking rules only apply to spells and similar magical effects too, since they only appear in the Magic chapter and specifically reference spells.
Even though we all know that isn't the case. d20 games are famous for their "unwritten" rules.
In any case, deep breathing will help mystics resist both magical and non magical attempts to disrupt their power. Make it a feat and give them +4 to their concentration to use or maintain such things.
I'm going to add the feat Deep Breathing to Leveled mutation to enable telepaths and telekinetics to maintain their powers in the face of any attempted mental disruption.
|
Just a not-thoroughly-considered idea off the top of my head: What if they made it so that intimidation shut down psychic magic, but only if the DC was exceeded by higher than normal (i.e. if you beat the DC you scare them but they can still use their powers, but in order to scare them so deeply they can no longer use their powers you have to beat the DC by 10+ or something)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I'm a fan of : Magically scared, can't cast spells. Regular scared, can cast spells. Especially since there are non-magical effects that can make you frightened or panicked that technically wouldn't limit spell casting, but a magical effect causing the shaken condition would.
I think it is intended to work the way you describe. Spells or SLA's with the "emotion" or "fear" descriptors prevent you from casting psychic spells with emotion components, but other things that create fear or other emotions do not. For me, Ravingdork's quoted sentence sounds very different in the context of the entire paragraph.
Emotion Components: Emotion components represent a particular emotional state required to cast the spell. A psychic spellcaster marshals her desire in order to focus and release the spell’s energy. 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 descriptors. (The emotion descriptor was originally introduced in Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic.) Even if the effect’s emotion matches the necessary emotion to cast the psychic spell, the spellcaster is not in control of her own desires and animal impulses, which is a necessary part of providing an emotion component.
The first two sentences make it clear that the term "emotion components" literally means that the psychic caster uses her emotions as spell components. The caster digs deep into her own anger, happiness, fear, etc. and uses that emotion as fuel for a spell. She needs that emotion to succeed. Reading Ravingdork's quote by itself might suggest that fear effects prevent casting because it overwhelms a psychic caster, but given the context I don't see it that way. When a barbarian swings his greatsword in a Dazzling Display, the psychic caster may well be shaken, but that fear is just another log she can throw on the bonfire of her mind. Her strangely wired brain can turn that fear into magic.
So if emotions help psychic casters, then why does it say that effects with the emotion or fear descriptors prevent them from casting spells with emotion components?
I think the key distinction is put forth in the last sentence. Even if the caster normally uses her fear to fuel a particular spell, she can't cast that spell if she is under the influence of, say, the Fear Spell. And this is because while under the effect of that spell "the spellcaster is not in control of her own desires and animal impulses." The aforementioned barbarian might have inspired fear in the psychic caster, but that fear belonged to the caster. It came from her own body and brain. But the fear created by the Fear Spell doesn't arise from within the psychic caster. It is externally imposed by magic. The psychic caster can't manipulate that external energy, and it overwhelms her normal ability to access and use her own emotions. I think that the language regarding "descriptors" was chosen specifically because it separates these emotion-imposing spells and SLA's from the various actions that merely inspire emotional reactions.
So my answer to the OP is "no, the demoralize action of the Intimidate skill does not fall under this category." But that's just my reading.
You can't really make distinctions between magical and non-magical status ailments.
There's magic effects that cause Nausea. There's non-magical effects that cause Nausia. Things that remove nausea, or are effected in special ways by Nausea don't care if the source was magical or not.
The same holds true for Fear effects.
Demoralize is a non-magical way of causing the Shaken condition. While a character is Shaken they are under a Fear effect.
Its that simple. There have been multiple FAQs confirming this and multiple designers discussing it. Demoralize is a Fear effect, a Mind effect and a Morale effect.
I think this is a case of in intended consequences. It would be much better and easier to clarify the new psychic magic rules than to add some weird corner case distinction to magical and non magical status ailments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't really make distinctions between magical and non-magical status ailments.
There's magic effects that cause Nausea. There's non-magical effects that cause Nausia. Things that remove nausea, or are effected in special ways by Nausea don't care if the source was magical or not.
The same holds true for Fear effects.
Demoralize is a non-magical way of causing the Shaken condition. While a character is Shaken they are under a Fear effect.
Its that simple. There have been multiple FAQs confirming this and multiple designers discussing it. Demoralize is a Fear effect, a Mind effect and a Morale effect.
I think this is a case of in intended consequences. It would be much better and easier to clarify the new psychic magic rules than to add some weird corner case distinction to magical and non magical status ailments.
The fear effect is the same whether caused by magic or not, but the emotion components section doesn't say that fear effects prevent psychic spell casting. It says that effects with the emotion or fear descriptor cause prevent psychic spell casting. A Psychic who is Shaken will experience the core rulebook symptoms of being Shaken regardless of the source, but the rules for emotion components do distinguish between sources. No descriptor, no problem.
|
The Dirty Trick Maneuver can give the blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened condition.
Even when used to give the shaken condition, it fails to be an effect that has the Fear Descriptor, despite creating a Fear Condition.
Note: The use of Intimidate to Demoralize should have been a Morale effect, not a Mind-effecting Fear effect, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty obvious hair-splitting. What should matter is the emotional state, not what caused it. Besides, it gives the Dazzling Display fighter something to do.
Is there really that big a difference, balance-wise, between "I hit you with Cause Fear, you're shaken with no save" and "I use my action to make a skill check, you're shaken with no save"? Well, aside from the fact that the first one is obviously better?
What's that? You're playing at higher levels? Fine, fine, Fear. A few levels higher, and just as no-save-giving (and if they fail the save, they're screwed entirely, and it affects a larger number than Intimidate does).
That is only for one round, admittedly, which is a small advantage in a fight likely to last 3-4. But unlike Intimidate, which requires some real investment and a decent roll, there's no way to avoid these effects. It seems to be a good sight more effective to use the spells. So what's so OP about letting good old-fashioned psychological warfare be effective?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty obvious hair-splitting.
Hair-splitting in the Rules Forum?!? Well, I never!
Seriously, I know that you are well aware that one person's hair-splitting is another person's common sense interpretation of the rules. Talking through the fine details is what this forum is all about.
What should matter is the emotional state, not what caused it.
That is not what the rules say. They say that it does matter what caused it. If the fear effect has the emotion or fear descriptors then it shuts down psychic casters, and if it doesn't then they can cast just fine.
Consider the wording of this FAQ.
What makes something a fear effect? What about a morale effect?
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.
Morale effects, unlike fear effects, so far have not had a descriptor or a call-out. Anything that grants a morale bonus is a morale effect. For example, the rage spell grants a morale bonus, so a creature immune to morale effects would be immune to the entire spell, including the –2 penalty to AC.
Here we have a list of various types of fear effects.
(1) spells with the fear descriptor(2) anything explicitly called out as a fear effect
(3) anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition
(4) all uses of the Intimidate skill
Only one of those four types uses the term "descriptor." This is a term that has a specific, technical meaning.
[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.
I can't find one instance anywhere in the PRD where the term "descriptor" is applied to any of the other categories of fear effects. (Or to anything other than spells, for that matter.) If you can find any, please let me know.
So I believe that I am following the wording as closely as I can. As I outlined in my earlier post, I also believe that this is the interpretation that makes the most sense when the context of the entire Psychic Magic section is considered. It is the convergence of those disparate approaches that makes me think that this is the correct interpretation.
Now maybe I am right, and maybe I am wrong. Maybe like the the SLA debacle, I will be right, then wrong, then right again. But I have really spent time thinking about this issue, and I have made a good-faith effort to explain my reasoning.
That is not what the rules say.
The rules allow a lot of things a GM can sensible ignore in his games—like the Commoner Railgun.
I support getting an FAQ ruling, of course. Like you said, one man's "obvious hairsplitting" is another man's major dilemma. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then we have the true reason, you can't have a lowly martial shutting down a caster.
That is not what the rules say.The rules allow a lot of things a GM can sensible ignore in his games—like the Commoner Railgun.
I support getting an FAQ ruling, of course. Like you said, one man's "obvious hairsplitting" is another man's major dilemma. ;)
Yep. All we can do is present our best arguments and wait for the Paizo gods to tell us which is the True Doctrine. And then wait for them to change their minds.
In the meantime, sensible GM's can just follow my obviously correct interpretation.
And then we have the true reason, you can't have a lowly martial shutting down a caster.
If that was directed at me, then you don't know what you are talking about.
And then we have the true reason, you can't have a lowly martial shutting down a caster.If that was directed at me, then you don't know what you are talking about.
Not directed at you unless you are secretly a member of the PDT. :D
|
The rules for psychic magic clearly state that ""
So I guess what I want to know is if the demoralize action of the Intimidate skill falls under this category. Seems to me there are plenty of effects that can cause the shaken condition, but don't necessarily have the "fear" descriptor.
What everyone is forgetting is that emotion components = somatic components. There are spells with no emotion component just like there are spells with no somatic component, e.g. teleport, dimension door and shout. More importantly, the whole point of an emotion component is that it's something a mundane can do to shut you down, just like grapple can shut down another caster with somatic components. It's something you have to prepare for, just like you need still spell or freedom of movement to bypass a somatic spell. So use logical spell and remove fear, end of story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grapple still shuts down psychic casters with unbeatably high concentration checks. The lack of a somatic component is irrelevant.
Only if you try to take a move action while in the grapple. You're probably not going to do that. Use your standard only for a spell, don't take the +10 penalty.
|
|
Grapple still shuts down psychic casters with unbeatably high concentration checks. The lack of a somatic component is irrelevant.What everyone is forgetting is that emotion components = somatic components. There are spells with no emotion component just like there are spells with no somatic component, e.g. teleport, dimension door and shout. More importantly, the whole point of an emotion component is that it's something a mundane can do to shut you down, just like grapple can shut down another caster with somatic components. It's something you have to prepare for, just like you need still spell or freedom of movement to bypass a somatic spell. So use logical spell and remove fear, end of story.The rules for psychic magic clearly state that ""
So I guess what I want to know is if the demoralize action of the Intimidate skill falls under this category. Seems to me there are plenty of effects that can cause the shaken condition, but don't necessarily have the "fear" descriptor.
And being pinned? Psychic casters can still cast, regular ones can't. That's just as available to mundanes as intimidate is.
The point is that you have to prepare for these tactics either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grappled or pinned psychic casters still have to make a DC 10+CMB+Spell Level concentration check, just like a normal caster casting a Still spell with no material component. It's also far harder to grapple and then pin a caster than it is to intimidate one (Demoralize DCs are hilariously easy and all it takes is a standard action from 30 feet away- or less for a creature using certain options like Cornugon Smash).
When you allow psychic casters in a game you have to tell them weather you are going with RAW or your own homebrew. I can see how an evil character might be fueled by fear, like Darth Vader.
|
|
Grappled or pinned psychic casters still have to make a DC 10+CMB+Spell Level concentration check, just like a normal caster casting a Still spell with no material component. It's also far harder to grapple and then pin a caster than it is to intimidate one (Demoralize DCs are hilariously easy and all it takes is a standard action from 30 feet away- or less for a creature using certain options like Cornugon Smash).
Then just stop your ears or VMC Oracle for Deaf Curse. Bam, immune to intimidate because you can't hear them. Hell, you can stick your fingers in your ears for the entire fight since you don't need your hands to cast anything if it's really a worry.
I mean, if a 50gp potion that you can make is too much effort, that is.
I agree that Demoralizing should effect a Psychic Caster the same as a spell with the Fear Descriptor. Not only does it make sense thematically, but as Kobold Cleaver said: a 1st level spell can - at the least - shut down a Psychic Caster for 1 round just as effectively as a Zone of Silence, and a 4th level spell can - at the least - shut down a group of Psychic Casters for 1 round just as effectively as a Zone of Silence. Meanwhile, Demoralize can only effect one creature at once without substantial skill rank and feat investments, and even then, it can still fail to accomplish anything with low rolls.
I see nothing unbalanced about this notion, and I'll probably incorporate a House Rule feat/trait that raises a Pcychic Caster's effective HD by X vs. Demoralizing checks.
Glad I'm playing an android who is immune to emotion and fear effects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Androids can never gain morale bonuses, and are immune to fear effects and all emotion-based effects.
Emotion Components: Emotion components represent a particular emotional state required to cast the spell. A psychic spellcaster marshals her desire in order to focus and release the spell’s energy. 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 descriptors. (The emotion descriptor was originally introduced in Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic.) Even if the effect’s emotion matches the necessary emotion to cast the psychic spell, the spellcaster is not in control of her own desires and animal impulses, which is a necessary part of providing an emotion component.
I would say that an Emotional Component is an emotion-based effect. I would rule that for an android to use a psychic spell with an emotion component, they would need to either use the logical spell metamagic, or have taken the empathy feat.
|
|
If androids can't rage, then they can't cast emotional spells. Considering androids do not appear as PC races in any hardcover book, It's not unreasonable for it not to be specifically spelled out in OA, or for the emotional component to be left out when it didn't exist at the time androids were written.
This is common sense. If you can't experience emotion, you can't bring that emotion forth when needed to cast a spell.
Well in any case, in our home campaign androids aren't technically emotionless they're just incredibly emotionally stunted due to being essentially born into war. My GM is fine with being able to make use of emotion components but we are playing a Mythic campaign so it's probably not as big of a balance concern compared to other options.
In other games however, I can see how that could be an issue at the very least in terms of fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter's post about androids and psychic magic.
Just going to leave this right here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter's post about androids and psychic magic.
Just going to leave this right here.
I don't know if anyone else is having a problem with that link only taking them to the top of the page instead of the post, but I figured I'd add the actual quote in:
Androids can either take the ability to gain emotions or take the Logical Spell feat and pay for metamagic like the NPC in Shattered Star Book 5 who has still spell on all her spells. You can't provide an emotion component if you are emotionless.
Emphasis added to indicate relevance.
|
|
Mark Seifter's post about androids and psychic magic.
Just going to leave this right here.
I don't know if anyone else is having a problem with that link only taking them to the top of the page instead of the post, but I figured I'd add the actual quote in:
Emphasis added to indicate relevance.
Androids can either take the ability to gain emotions or take the Logical Spell feat and pay for metamagic like the NPC in Shattered Star Book 5 who has still spell on all her spells. You can't provide an emotion component if you are emotionless.
Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, I'm pretty certain Mark is wrong on the Android issue*. It does clarify RAI quite well, however. It should probably be errata'd.
* I recognize that he made that comment during the playtest, and that the wording of the rules may have changed since then.
As WRITTEN, androids can provide emotion components, but I would take Mark's side on the issue RAI-wise. Especially seeing as a psionic is shut down by the Calm Emotions spell too.