I'm currently playing a dhampir spelleating bloodrager in a non-pfs game.
I'm considering what rage powers to take, should I want to swap out my next bloodline power via the Primalist archetype. The Lesser Spirit Totem rage power seems like it could be interesting, but would I count as my own foe for the purposes of the power? I assume no, but I wanted to confirm.
Reading the note on the side there in the page you posted to, it says you choose who they hit
The Spirits aer under your control somewhat, as they dont attack your allies.
I dont see it as a too-far pull that you get them to understand to also whack you, too.
Generally rules and abilties are worded with a"normal" character imind, not some weird cornercases like "living undead, but not really" Dhampires. And writing 150 small rules adjustments into the Dhampire race statblock seems excessive.
You mean would your own rage power attack you against your will? No.
Allow me to clarify - I'm asking if I can choose to have them attack myself. Since my character is a dhampir, the negative energy they deal would heal him.
Reading the note on the side there in the page you posted to, it says you choose who they hit
Yeah, I saw that, but it's just an editor's note and not a FAQ, so I assumed that it's not RAW. I wasn't sure if there was official RAW wording clarifying the definition of 'foe' (as I believe there is wording which allows you to count as your own ally for usage of the term 'ally').
You are misunderstanding how positive/negative energy work. The "polarity" doesn't automatically change between healing and harming unless the effect explicitly says so. So, just because the spirits deal negative energy damage doesn't automatically cause it to heal undead (and dhampir). You'd still suffer damage from the attacks despite them being negative energy.
I don't profess to have a broad system mastery, but I thought I had understood how this mechanic works reasonably well. This wasn't my interpretation - how do you figure this?
The Spirits aer under your control somewhat, as they dont attack your allies.
I dont see it as a too-far pull that you get them to understand to also whack you, too.
Generally rules and abilties are worded with a"normal" character imind, not some weird cornercases like "living undead, but not really" Dhampires. And writing 150 small rules adjustments into the Dhampire race statblock seems excessive.
I tend to agree, but wanted to fish for opinions (and possibly RAW text). Thanks for weighing in.
|
You cannot use Spirit Totem to attack yourself, because you are not adjacent to yourself.
Spirit Totem, Lesser (Su): While raging, the barbarian is surrounded by spirit wisps that harass her foes. These spirits make one slam attack each round against a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian. This slam attack is made using the barbarian's full base attack bonus, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier. The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier.
Spirit Totem, Greater (Su): While raging, the spirits that surround the barbarian become dangerous to any enemy adjacent to the barbarian. Living enemies adjacent to the barbarian at the start of her turn take 1d8 points of negative energy damage. In addition, the spirit wisps can now attack foes that are up to 15 feet away from the barbarian and the slam attack deals 1d6 points of negative energy damage. A barbarian must have the spirit totem rage power and be at least 10th level to select this rage power.
|
Yeah, I saw that, but it's just an editor's note and not a FAQ, so I assumed that it's not RAW. I wasn't sure if there was official RAW wording clarifying the definition of 'foe' (as I believe there is wording which allows you to count as your own ally for usage of the term 'ally').
The editor's note links to the FAQ actually. link
You cannot use Spirit Totem to attack yourself, because you are not adjacent to yourself.
Spirit Totem, Lesser (Su): While raging, the barbarian is surrounded by spirit wisps that harass her foes. These spirits make one slam attack each round against a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian. This slam attack is made using the barbarian's full base attack bonus, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier. The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier.
Spirit Totem, Greater (Su): While raging, the spirits that surround the barbarian become dangerous to any enemy adjacent to the barbarian. Living enemies adjacent to the barbarian at the start of her turn take 1d8 points of negative energy damage. In addition, the spirit wisps can now attack foes that are up to 15 feet away from the barbarian and the slam attack deals 1d6 points of negative energy damage. A barbarian must have the spirit totem rage power and be at least 10th level to select this rage power.
Maybe this is splitting hairs, but the definition of melee attacks reads as follows:
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
This indicates that being adjacent to X is synonymous with "X within 5 feet is considered adjacent", thus you can be adjacent to yourself because you're always within 5 feet of yourself. Though admittedly, this could be a stretch.
Thanks for pointing this out.
The editor's note links to the FAQ actually.
Oh wow, I had completely missed that. Thanks!
Most positive/negative energy damage effects specifically outline in which cases they heal and in which cases they harm. But, for a rare few, they deal damage regardless of the living/undead status of the target. Blood Crow Strike is one such example. Stricken Heart would be another. Another tangential case would be Chill Touch which deals negative energy damage to both HP as well as Str, but specifies that it causes Undead to flee in panic rather than suffer damage (if negative automatically healed undead, it would have said they flee rather than benefit from healing). In summary, negative energy doesn't automatically heal undead just for being negative energy; the rules element must explicitly call out that it heals undead for Dhampir's NEA to be applicable.You are misunderstanding how positive/negative energy work. The "polarity" doesn't automatically change between healing and harming unless the effect explicitly says so. So, just because the spirits deal negative energy damage doesn't automatically cause it to heal undead (and dhampir). You'd still suffer damage from the attacks despite them being negative energy.I don't profess to have a broad system mastery, but I thought I had understood how this mechanic works reasonably well. This wasn't my interpretation - how do you figure this?
Oh. Weird. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't have a counter example or link to further an argument. Maybe I'm just looking at it from a 3.5 mindset and assumed that calling out (pos/neg)itive energy for healing or harming was the specific rule (such as in the case for a cleric's channel energy) rather than the general rule.
|
Also relevant is this FAQ
Negative Energy Affinity: How is this ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?
The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.Update: Page 299—In the description of the Negative Energy Affinity ability, replace the current entry with the following:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Notice the part bolded at the end. Effects only affect undead differently if they say they do (as pointed out above).
You are adjacent to your own foe, and you are adjacent to yourself, but this effect only attacks away from your direction, and even if you could, it's not an effect that heals undead.
You're missing the most obvious answer.
You ALWAYS count as your own ally unless otherwise stated.
This ability does not otherwise state.
You are an ally, not an enemy. Case closed.
You are adjacent to your own foe, and you are adjacent to yourself, but this effect only attacks away from your direction, and even if you could, it's not an effect that heals undead.
Citation for that please. Nothing in the description says it has to be away from you. If, for example, a Tiny-sized creature was in your square, your argument would state that I would have to 5-foot into another square in order to attack that creature. Not only is that nonsense, there's no rules basis behind that, or for this ability.
*EDIT* The actual wording from the FAQ is "The spirits always strike from your direction." This means that the spirits will be attacking from the square you inhabit, not that it has to be away from you.
Secondly, if this ability was used to attack an Undead creature, it would heal it, because creatures of the Undead type are healed from Negative Energy, which this attack deals. The FAQ says the intent behind Negative Energy Affinity allows creatures to be healed by Negative Energy and damaged by Positive Energy, as an Undead, so it makes sense per RAI that this ability would actually heal other Undead, even though RAW still conveys it poorly.
That being said, there is one thing that will cause this to not work: It requires a living foe as a target for the spirits. Dhampirs are considered alive, technically, so no argument there. But you aren't your own foe, especially when there is a FAQ that says you consider yourself as your own ally except for instances where it's impossible or makes no sense to do so. Here, it makes sense that you are your own ally, so from that right there, the grounds for counting yourself a living foe are broken.
**EDIT** And Rynjin decided to dip some levels in Ninja...
You are adjacent to your own foe, and you are adjacent to yourself, but this effect only attacks away from your direction, and even if you could, it's not an effect that heals undead.Citation for that please. Nothing in the description says it has to be away from you. If, for example, a Tiny-sized creature was in your square, your argument would state that I would have to 5-foot into another square in order to attack that creature. Not only is that nonsense, there's no rules basis behind that, or for this ability.
*EDIT* The actual wording from the FAQ is "The spirits always strike from your direction." This means that the spirits will be attacking from the square you inhabit, not that it has to be away from you.
Secondly, if this ability was used to attack an Undead creature, it would heal it, because creatures of the Undead type are healed from Negative Energy, which this attack deals. The FAQ says the intent behind Negative Energy Affinity allows creatures to be healed by Negative Energy and damaged by Positive Energy, as an Undead, so it makes sense per RAI that this ability would actually heal other Undead, even though RAW still conveys it poorly.
That being said, there is one thing that will cause this to not work: It requires a living foe as a target for the spirits. Dhampirs are considered alive, technically, so no argument there. But you aren't your own foe, especially when there is a FAQ that says you consider yourself as your own ally except for instances where it's impossible or makes no sense to do so. Here, it makes sense that you are your own ally, so from that right there, the grounds for counting yourself a living foe are broken.
**EDIT** And Rynjin decided to dip some levels in Ninja...
This answer makes a lot of sense, but the FAQ muddies things for me.
You're missing the most obvious answer.
You ALWAYS count as your own ally unless otherwise stated.
This ability does not otherwise state.
You are an ally, not an enemy. Case closed.
"Unless it doesn't make sense" like, perhaps, being surrounded by healing robots with nothing better to do that you summoned and NOT healing yourself?
That sort of not making sense? If anything I think your quote may allow this to work rather than the other way around!
...Huh?
Read it again.
It makes sense that you are your own ally here. There is nothing her that suggests you are not your own ally.
If you are an ally, you are not an enemy. Period.
It makes sense that you are your own ally here. There is nothing her that suggests you are not your own ally.No I don't think it does make sense. These spirits heal me, and I control their targeting, yet cannot beneficially target myself even when wounded, and even with no plausible physical barrier etc. mentioned?
In that case, counting myself as an ally doesn't make any sense anymore, because it's the opposite of an allied typical action to refuse to heal a wounded ally when all you can do is heal. So I believe that FAQ actually is the thing that ALLOWS me to not have to count myself as an ally for that purpose. Doing so would be totally illogical and it has an escape clause about that.
No, it doesn't. This is an ability that attacks enemies. THEY are not allies. They are a class feature that deals damage. They attack enemies.
You are not an enemy.
No amount of stupid logical twisting will make that not the case.
Even by your wonky logic either you are an ally, and they don't attack you, or you're not an ally, and therefore they won't try to heal you.
You control which enemy they attack. That is the extent of the ability. Why you are attempting to make it more complicated than it is baffles me.
It makes sense that you are your own ally here. There is nothing her that suggests you are not your own ally.No I don't think it does make sense. These spirits heal me, and I control their targeting, yet cannot beneficially target myself only because of this? In that case, counting myself as an ally doesn't make any sense, because it's the opposite of an allied typical action to refuse to heal, so I believe that FAQ actually may be the thing that allows doing it by allowing myself to not have to count me as an ally for that purpose.
It doesn't make sense to count yourself as your own foe, either. This isn't some "Character V.S. Self" shenanigans we got going on here.
You're also misinterpreting the "Makes no sense" clause. Here's an example of something, and it refers to the oh-so-popular Dominate/Charm Person.
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)...An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders...
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind...Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out...
So, if I was to take your argument that you can count as your own foe, and you were Dominated, and the caster told you to commit suicide by Coup De Gracing yourself, what would happen? You're your own enemy, so you should have the right to do so. But doing so is self-destructive/suicidal, so you shouldn't have the right to do so.
It's a paradox. You're right, and yet not right, and since you can't reach a legitimate conclusion, you don't arrive at a sensible answer. This means it can't make sense to call yourself your own foe in this instance, because of the conflicting information.
Inversely, back to the original topic at hand, we have the PC trying to commit the spirits to attack a hostile living foe. The spirits are summoned by the PC, meaning that it is an effect that the PC himself creates, and has control over. So how can he be both an ally to the spirits (as he summoned and has complete control over them, similar to a Summoned Monster), and a foe to the spirits? Short answer: He can't be both an ally (AKA, have complete control of the spirits) and a foe (AKA, be a threat to the PC). He's either an ally, or a foe. Not both.
You're right, the FAQ doesn't require that.
The ability does.
These spirits make one slam attack each round against a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian.
Unless you have some sort of crazy ability to make the spirits think you're a foe, even though you're the one who controls how they'll attack (which again, refers to the ability of being able to consider yourself your own foe), I don't think you'd be an eligible target for the slam attack.
This is exactly the sort of shenanigans I'm talking about; it borderlines the kind of obviously unintended shenanigans of the Nature Oracle and the Wish Sno-Cone Machines.
Unless you have some sort of crazy ability to make the spirits think you're a foeNot a "crazy abililty" just default of logic: if you're not an ally, you must be a foe.
IF those are the only two categories allowed for by the rules, which you just said in your last post you thought they were. "He's either an ally, or a foe." If so, I don't need anything telling me I'm a foe, I just am one by process of elimination if I'm definitely not an ally.
IF on the other hand, you no longer think those are the only two categories, and the rules support this (I'm not entirely sure), then perhaps you could be some other third category, but what is that, and is such a thing allowed for in the text?
Just because I said he can only be one of two things doesn't mean those are the only things we have in the game.
Neutrality is a thing. You can have creatures that do nothing to either help or hinder you or anything else in the combat. Think onlookers in a town when a guard is beating down a criminal, then hauling him off to prison. After the deed is done, said onlookers go about their business (assuming they haven't already when the action was going on, since they don't care and got other important things to do).
There's also the possibility of, say, a corpse, which is neither an ally nor an enemy, but an object. It can get complicated when you pitch in Animated Objects (which are technically creatures), but there's another avenue.
There might be others, but that's just off the top of my head.
According to you, you don't seem to think there is another category. IF this is true, then I AM indeed a foe, because we have a specific rule explaining why I'm not an ally (the FAQ)
That's not what the FAQ says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can be your own foe. You decide who your spells target. It's the same way with "ally."
Ally means someone you want to benefit. Foe means someone you want to harm. You decide who your allies and enemies are.
You can be your own foe. You decide who your spells target. It's the same way with "ally."
Ally means someone you want to benefit. Foe means someone you want to harm. You decide who your allies and enemies are.
And either way this definition is paradoxical for this ability.
He wants to BENEFIT from an ability that can only HARM FOES.
He can't be an ally and be attacked, and he can't be a foe and benefit.
You can be your own foe. You decide who your spells target. It's the same way with "ally."
Ally means someone you want to benefit. Foe means someone you want to harm. You decide who your allies and enemies are.
I didn't realize Rage Powers and Spells were the same thing...
If you are counting yourself as your own foe you are suicidal. You have no survival instinct. Coup de Grace yourself until dead, or you decide you don't hate yourself so much.
You gain no benifical effect from attacking yourself if you count yourself as your own enemy. An enemy is someone who you have no interest in helping.
Tl;dr: if there's no official definition of these terms anywhere (which I still don't know for sure), then yes you could treat yourself as a foe whenever you like, and it wouldn't even be awkward for the story in this case.
So finally it's come around to "The rules don't say I can't" and hit rock bottom, and I can safely ignore anything you say on the subject from here on.
Of course, if you treat yourself as a foe, you're going about it rather inefficiently. Just headbutt your greatsword for 1d12 (or 1d10) plus 1.5x Strength mod. Since negative energy doesn't heal you in that case. (Otherwise, Disrupt Undead for 1d6 positive damage to undead would cure the living, and that's abhorrent to those who craft sorcerer/wizard spell lists.)
I can somehow imagine there might be some weird case where you do need to damage yourself, tho, and 1d4 + Charisma mod is probably the lesser of the evils there. So bash away! (A shame it's not weapon damage or DR hijinx could ensue too.)
So finally it's come around to "The rules don't say I can't" and hit rock bottom, and I can safely ignore anything you say on the subject from here on.You can't do anything you want just because the rules say you can't.
You CAN (and in fact MUST) make a decision though, between different things the rules allow you to do, if the rules fail to give you any actual formal other/better way to make that decision.
How else, exactly, do you propose that we decide who "ally" and "foe" are if there is no definition anywhere in the book, other than "our roleplaying choice"? Because we HAVE TO choose something, when rules text specifies allies and foes as seemingly being mechanically relevant categories.
When words are not defined in the rulebook, it is because they already have a meaning in English. You'll notice they don't define a LOT of words in the rulebooks, because they don't have a separate meaning..
Ally: a person who associates or cooperates with another; supporter. (there are other definitions but they're largely more specified versions of this broader definition like "friend" or "someone you've signed a formal political contract with").
Foe: 1.
a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy:
a bitter foe.
2.
a military enemy; hostile army.
3.
a person belonging to a hostile army or nation.
4.
an opponent in a game or contest; adversary:
a political foe.
5.
a person who is opposed in feeling, principle, etc., to something:
a foe to progress in civil rights.
6.
a thing that is harmful to or destructive of something:
Sloth is the foe of health.
Hey look, NONE of these fit your proposed interpretation. You are not your own enemy. You are not a military enemy to yourself. You do not belong to an army or nation hostile to yourself. You are not your own opponent in this game or contest. You are not opposed to yourself in feeling, principle, etc.
The only definition that even VAGUELY fits is "harmful to or destructive of something", and in this specific case you wouldn't be anyway.
Are they aligned with you/supportive of you/cooperating with you? If yes then ally.
If no then they are either unaligned or foe.
Are they opposed to you in some manner? If yes then foe.
If no then unaligned or ally.