|
* I recognize that he made that comment during the playtest, and that the wording of the rules may have changed since then.
I have both the playtest doc and the final version of OcA and the text of emotion component is the same in both. ("animal fear impulses" was changed to "animal impulses" in the final, but that's it.) So I'm not seeing how Mark's comment wouldn't apply to the final.
I would make a feat tax that allows Androids to simulate emotions and provide an emotion component, similar to how the Buomman race in 3.5 (which couldn't speak) needed Nonverbal Spell or Silent Spell to be spellcasters.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
* I recognize that he made that comment during the playtest, and that the wording of the rules may have changed since then.I have both the playtest doc and the final version of OcA and the text of emotion component is the same in both. ("animal fear impulses" was changed to "animal impulses" in the final, but that's it.) So I'm not seeing how Mark's comment wouldn't apply to the final.
I would make a feat tax that allows Androids to simulate emotions and provide an emotion component, similar to how the Buomman race in 3.5 (which couldn't speak) needed Nonverbal Spell or Silent Spell to be spellcasters.
Presumably, this would do the job. ^_^
EDIT: Beaten by four seconds...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You will find they Can indeed rage.
It's just sub optimal. They fail to gain the morale bonuses, but get to keep the penalties.
and they still fatigue afterwards
In short: they can rage. they just wouldn't
[also: we have an android barbarian in our group]
|
|
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.
You will find they Can indeed rage.
It's just sub optimal. They fail to gain the morale bonuses, but get to keep the penalties.
and they still fatigue afterwards
In short: they can rage. they just wouldn't
[also: we have an android barbarian in our group]
No, they get nothing at all from rage (penalties included) because it is an "emotion-based effect." All effects are considered, not just spells. Thus they are immune.
Since the PDT didn't post in-thread announcements for their mega-FAQ, I thought I should note for future visitors that this issue has been resolved.
Emotion Components: Does the shaken condition from effects like Intimidate count as “an effect with the fear descriptor” for the purpose of blocking spells with emotion components?
Yes, they do. It should say “fear effect,” and for most descriptors, these wordings are sometimes used interchangeably. For instance, an ability that protects you from effects with the charm descriptor would generally protect you from a harpy’s song (which is a charm effect).
So the PDT disagreed with me. I'm ok with the result, and from a practical standpoint I'm happy since Intimidate, usually through Enforcer, is a favorite tool of mine, but I have to say that I find the explanation for the ruling to be confusing.
They first suggest that "descriptor" was an incorrect term in this case, but they go on to say that it actually was correct because "descriptor" can also mean "effect." That seems a bit contradictory to me, but I suppose they might just have meant that they should have used "effects" because it would have caused less confusion. In either case, I'm not a fan of blending the terms together.
Furthermore, I still can't find a single instance, before this one, where "descriptor" was used in the manner they described. As far as I can tell, the rulebooks have always used the term exclusively for spells (and indirectly SLAs).
Even odder is the example that they give. I can't find a Charm Descriptor mentioned anywhere on either the PRD or the SRD. It makes me wonder whether they just made up a fictional example because, like me, they couldn't find any previously existing ones.
Even Charm Person doesn't have the Charm Descriptor. It is from the Charm subschool, but subschools are not descriptors. Unless maybe they are now. Does "descriptor" now mean "subschool" as well as "effect?" If descriptor=effect=subschool then I need to review a lot of rules.
|
I think what they were trying to say is "We meant descriptor as in the more general 'word that describes another word' as opposed to 'descriptor as defined in the Magic section of the CRB'".
What the FAQ establishes (I think intentionally) is that if something is described as "an X effect", then X should be considered a descriptor for that effect when relevant, whether X is charm, fear, or whatever.