|
Been wanting to play a Law-domain Cleric for a bit now, but I'm a tad nervous (out of character) regarding potential to hit chaotic allies. In particular, Order's Wrath.
You channel lawful power to smite enemies. The power takes the form of a three-dimensional grid of energy. Only chaotic and neutral (not lawful) creatures are harmed by the spell.The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) to chaotic creatures (or 1d6 points of damage per caster level, maximum 10d6, to chaotic outsiders) and causes them to be dazed for 1 round. A successful Will save reduces the damage to half and negates the daze effect.
The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither chaotic nor lawful, and they are not dazed. They can reduce the damage in half again (down to one-quarter of the roll) with a successful Will save.
In character, the spell seems perfectly reasonable. If they are hurt by the spell, it is due to their own choices (as alignments are a reflection of choices).
Out of character, it seems very dangerous for killing party members, especially as PFS is opposed to EVIL, but seems very at ease with non-lawful alignments amongst the PCs.
Granted, I could use a selective spell feat to not hit allies, but that seems like something I'd only do for out of character reasons. In character, the spell is already selective enough.
And this is a Domain spell, so it's not like I'd just not choose this spell as a Law-domain cleric.
Suggestions?
Developer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Treat it like you would a fireball. This could hurt some of your allies, so it's good form to get at least tacit permission from allies in the effect before dousing the area with magic. The players in question might shout, "Yes please! Just do whatever you need to to kill it!"—just like they might were you casting fireball.
|
But are they chaotic outsiders?
Does it mean outsider with the chaotic alignment? Or outsiders with the chaotic subtype?
Chaotic alignment. Two categories: chaotic creatures and chaotic outsiders. Not "outsiders (chaotic)" or "outsiders with the chaotic subtype"
By the way, selective channel is very cheap. Even cheaper than selective fireball.
Not sure how that helps since this is not a channel but yeah, the Selective Channel feat can be taken way before Selective Spell.
Contributor
|
You have to be the subtype, not just aligned.
This argument has come up before, and I've never seen anything confirming your interpretation. Do you have a source for that?
Most effects spell out "outsiders with the [alignment] subtype" when that's what they mean. "Evil outsiders", without clarifying text, means the same thing as "evil humanoids" or "evil dragons" - a creature of that type and of the appropriate alignment. Thus, a NE tiefling is an "evil outsider".
EDIT: I just double-checked the unholy blight spell - it makes no mention of subtypes.
|
Contributor
|
Quick thought experiment: How would the OP (or anyone for that matter) feel about having his lawful cleric in the zone of a Chaos Hammer my cleric of <insert chaotic deity> sets off?
I haven't done the research, but I'm sure good and evil have their equivalents as well. Personally, I'd get formal consent from any player who's effected character was in the radius before setting off any of these.
Holy smite and unholy blight are the good/evil equivalents.
I'd agree on the consent thing, too - as Mr. Compton said above, treat it like a fireball.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a subtype thing. Like "evil outsiders" means "outsiders (evil)" every time. Could be clearer though.I'd like to see where this is said, as I hear it claimed a lot, and have never found the rule. Could you point me to it, please?
And now I can't find it anymore. ehhh
|
Contributor
|
And now I can't find it anymore. ehhhIt's a subtype thing. Like "evil outsiders" means "outsiders (evil)" every time. Could be clearer though.I'd like to see where this is said, as I hear it claimed a lot, and have never found the rule. Could you point me to it, please?
Right? Happens to me a lot too. ^_^
The only thing I found was James Jacobs (who, as everyone loves to remind me, is not a rules source) saying that they misworded the spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be VERY not ok with being dazed. The last thing i want to do is wait half an hour for a combat turn to come around and have to skip it because of something another party member did.
You could always just be more lawful....
But, your quote is exactly my (out of character) concern.
Though SR does apply and you can use a will save to negate the daze (and reduce the damage by half). I suppose with solid saves/buffing, the party could make even a chaotic character mostly immune to this one, provided we did a bit of planning.
|
|
And now I can't find it anymore. ehhhIt's a subtype thing. Like "evil outsiders" means "outsiders (evil)" every time. Could be clearer though.I'd like to see where this is said, as I hear it claimed a lot, and have never found the rule. Could you point me to it, please?
Found it on PRD:
Chaotic Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the chaotically aligned outer planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have chaotic alignments; however, if their alignments change they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature had a chaotic alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the chaotic subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are chaotically aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).
here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html
Doesn't really clarify the spell, but does clarify that having the alignment subtype counts as being of that alignment.
|
|
You could always just be more lawful....
Could, but I don't want to be unless I want to. The essence of the no PVP rule is that you can't "play your character" by punishing the unlawful because I'm not allowed to play MY character and turn around and thwack them upside the head with an axe for interfering with MY freedom.
But, your quote is exactly my (out of character) concern.
Get selective channel and don't skimp on the charisma, get some movement and ac boosters so you can position it a little better. Players can legitimately call foul on that, particularly if they're in melee range of the thing you're trying to stun.
Though SR does apply and you can use a will save to negate the daze (and reduce the damage by half). I suppose with solid saves/buffing, the party could make even a chaotic character mostly immune to this one, provided we did a bit of planning.
It would take a lot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be VERY not ok with being dazed. The last thing i want to do is wait half an hour for a combat turn to come around and have to skip it because of something another party member did.You could always just be more lawful....
But, your quote is exactly my (out of character) concern.
Though SR does apply and you can use a will save to negate the daze (and reduce the damage by half). I suppose with solid saves/buffing, the party could make even a chaotic character mostly immune to this one, provided we did a bit of planning.
Or, you could aim the spell so it doesn't hit your teammates. Including your teammates in an AoE effect wold be considered PvP, and should only be done with your teammates permission, or be prepared to have a GM disallow your action because of PvP.
|
|
Get selective channel and don't skimp on the charisma, get some movement and ac boosters so you can position it a little better. Players can legitimately call foul on that, particularly if they're in melee range of the thing you're trying to stun.
This keeps getting mentioned, despite not applying. This is Order's Wrath, which is a spell. Here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/orderSWrath.html#ord er-s-wrath
I'm not talking about alignment channel. I agree, lots of good ways to avoid hitting allies with channeling.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After getting 4 different types of channeling area configuration for my negativator, I taught myself to think in 3d shapes. Basically, try aiming area effects above your enemies so that only the lower edge of the area touches them. Placed on the grid, a fireball might look like it covers the whole hall but place it high enough and only 4 squares will touch the floor.
Might want to check that there's enough space above though. Fireballs are spreads afterall...
|
|
Or, you could aim the spell so it doesn't hit your teammates. Including your teammates in an AoE effect wold be considered PvP, and should only be done with your teammates permission, or be prepared to have a GM disallow your action because of PvP.
I did ask my local group. They defined PVP as actively trying to kill allies. They do not consider AoE to be inherently PVP, even if you hit allies.
That said, I think Order's Wrath is particularly vicious, which is why I mentioned it.
Treat it like you would a fireball. This could hurt some of your allies, so it's good form to get at least tacit permission from allies in the effect before dousing the area with magic. The players in question might shout, "Yes please! Just do whatever you need to to kill it!"—just like they might were you casting fireball.
This answer seems very reasonable. Besides, I'm lawful, so due warning/asking seems entirely reasonable.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, selective channel is very cheap. Even cheaper than selective fireball.Not sure how that helps since this is not a channel but yeah, the Selective Channel feat can be taken way before Selective Spell.
Yeah, the spell description started with "you channel the power..."
So I thought it was some variant channel I hadn't heard of.
|
|
By the way, selective channel is very cheap. Even cheaper than selective fireball.Not sure how that helps since this is not a channel but yeah, the Selective Channel feat can be taken way before Selective Spell.Yeah, the spell description started with "you channel the power..."
So I thought it was some variant channel I hadn't heard of.
Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
11,000 gp (and probably some prestige or something) gets you a selective metamagic rod suitable for order's wrath.
Worst-case scenario, make sure your other domain has a pretty solid 4th-level spell. ^_^
Both good suggestions.
I think I could also burn the 4th level domain slot with a metamagic version of one of the lesser domain powers.
That said, Order's Wrath is an awesome spell provided your chaotic allies aren't in melee with your target. The Dazing bit of Order's wrath is main issue from a PVP standpoint, but is also one of the main reasons it would be awesome against certain opponents.
|
|
Though SR does apply and you can use a will save to negate the daze (and reduce the damage by half). I suppose with solid saves/buffing, the party could make even a chaotic character mostly immune to this one, provided we did a bit of planning.It would take a lot.
Spell immunity is also 4th level cleric spell and it would work great against Order's Wrath. It's got a much longer duration (10min/level), so it could be planned ahead without issue. Mind you, probably only viable if the party has a single chaotic character, but it is still realistic option to worth with an Unmodified Order's Wrath.
|
Developer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that chaotic neutral is the default alignment at my local group...It is the default alignment for a lot of people as it is the alignment that receives the least amount of grief from GMs and adventure authors.
More pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios. Got it!
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios. Got it!I'm pretty sure that chaotic neutral is the default alignment at my local group...It is the default alignment for a lot of people as it is the alignment that receives the least amount of grief from GMs and adventure authors.
yessssss
(I play lots of paladins, and I want to make a tiefling Hellknight. Law away!)
|
|
On a side note, this spell isn't exactly unique. The Chaos Domain has a very similar "Chaos Hammer" and the Good Domain has "Holy Smite" and all are 4th level powers of their respective domains.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/chaosHammer.html
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/holySmite.html
Evil domain has one too, though that's not an option for PCs in PFS.
And, for the record, chaotic is why wars happen. The chaotic good guys duke it out with the chaotic evil guys, and all us lawful types seeking peace get caught in the middle. Peace is an inherently lawful concept, after all.
I thought the default alignment of adventurers was chaotic-greedy.
----
In a recent adventure, my chaotically aligned char was hit by 3 Order's Wrath. It hurt. A lot. I think the GM had mercy on me after that. Fortunately, we were "the distraction", so could flee (and did). I survived.
I agree that thinking of it as a Fireball is a good way to think of it. However, that does not help when your character is invisibly sneaking into position just when the AoE lands. Same adventure, a little later (but after healing back up) I was invisible and got hit by a empowered fireball and brought down to single digit hp. Again, ouch.
While both instances were from the GM, they were legitimate, and in character for the sources of damage. Sometimes, life hands you lemons, and you just have to suck it.
In 4e, I played with another player who was known for AoE blasting bad guys no matter what friendlies were there. Took less damage usually, but it was a lot harder to enjoy those games.
So I have been the recipient from both GM and Party. It is worse when it is from the party. You expect the GM to throw stuff at you.
If you want to be throwing out AoEs with friendlies in the mix, you need to find a way to mitigate the effect on them. It can be resistance to the effect (resist fire vs. fireball), selective spell/channel, temp hit points given beforehand, or player permission. Otherwise, avoid friendlies, or expect bad feelings.
/cevah
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that thinking of it as a Fireball is a good way to think of it. However, that does not help when your character is invisibly sneaking into position just when the AoE lands. Same adventure, a little later (but after healing back up) I was invisible and got hit by a empowered fireball and brought down to single digit hp. Again, ouch.
Not really sure what to say when you are invisible...If my PC is visually certain that the enemy is alone, tossing a fireball seems entirely reasonable - even if your PC is secretly present. That's proper role playing (assuming fireball is what I'd normally use in that situation).
This situation would be one where joint planning comes in. If my PC lacks the ability to see invisible, then you need to plan out your actions ahead of time and explain to me where you will be. You can't just assume that the caster knows where the invisible guy is.
I'm not trying to shift the blame, but it does sound like a lack of coordination is enabling this situation. That said, it also seems like someone has it out to get you...
On a side note, do you have to be aware of the "targets" you want to exclude with selective spell? Does seem iffy that I could opt to miss targets I don't know are there.
|
Contributor
|
On a side note, do you have to be aware of the "targets" you want to exclude with selective spell? Does seem iffy that I could opt to miss targets I don't know are there.
The wording of the feat is vague - it just speaks about "choosing targets", which generally requires line-of-sight when magic is involved.
I'd rule that you need to see them, but table variation seems possible.
|
|
Quick thought experiment: How would the OP (or anyone for that matter) feel about having his lawful cleric in the zone of a Chaos Hammer my cleric of <insert chaotic deity> sets off?
I haven't done the research, but I'm sure good and evil have their equivalents as well. Personally, I'd get formal consent from any player who's effected character was in the radius before setting off any of these.
Holy smite and unholy blight are the good/evil equivalents.
I'd agree on the consent thing, too - as Mr. Compton said above, treat it like a fireball.
I have a good cleric of Sarenrae with the Fire domain who routinely uses both fireball and holy smite. Teamwork is the key to making sure you don't hit your allies.
And since you're playing lawful anyway, in this case, that shouldn't be an issue for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, for the record, chaotic is why wars happen. The chaotic good guys duke it out with the chaotic evil guys, and all us lawful types seeking peace get caught in the middle. Peace is an inherently lawful concept, after all.
So apparently, I failed my will save to avoid an alignment debate. I do know better, I just can't resist.
I disagree with the quoted paragraph entirely. Peace is a good concept. Violence is an evil concept. Law vs chaos just determines how orderly they are.
I remember back in 1st edition AD&D days, when someone didn't understand the concept of lawful evil ("How can someone be evil if they're obeying the law?"), I pointed out Darth Vader and the Emperor as famous fictional examples. They wanted to dominate and control the galaxy, while the chaotic good Rebel Alliance fought for freedom, by whatever means necessary.
And really, fascism is a lawful concept. Fascist dictators want very orderly control over their countries, and everyone in them. But their brutality often leads to violence and war. Not to go all Godwin, but an obvious example of lawful evil in the real world would be Nazi Germany.
|
|
My Monk was taken down to 1HP from death by successive rounds of Chaos Hammer (failed both saves). They were from the enemy. He was also nearly killed by a certain Holy Word like power from a certain scenario, until the GM realized the next day that the HD affect was supposed to be reduced. And both of those were before Unchained took away his good Will save.
He'd still likely be ok with being caught in an area of friendly fire if the situation were bad enough (BBEG, other tough creature, or the group being otherwise mostly inaffective). Just please don't make it a habit of dropping it on lower lever henchmen, when the spell becomes more of a threat than the enemy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios. Got it!I'm pretty sure that chaotic neutral is the default alignment at my local group...It is the default alignment for a lot of people as it is the alignment that receives the least amount of grief from GMs and adventure authors.
Yes. YES. And 100% YES. More scenarios that that reward doing the right thing
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you must reward Chaotic/borderline evil behavior, at least allow for a choice that gives different rewards based on going with the Light side instead of the Dark. Good and Lawful characters get harassed enough by GMs it is nice to occasionally be rewarded for doing the right thing.
Getting a small boon depending on the way the character handled a situation sounds really cool. So +1 for that. :)
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you must reward Chaotic/borderline evil behavior, at least allow for a choice that gives different rewards based on going with the Light side instead of the Dark. Good and Lawful characters get harassed enough by GMs it is nice to occasionally be rewarded for doing the right thing.
It's not quite chaos vs. law, but I do hope that you get a chance to play Pathfinder Society Scenario #7–11: Ancients' Anguish with a Scarab Sages PC. I love those kinds of moments.
|
|
It's not quite chaos vs. law, but I do hope that you get a chance to play Pathfinder Society Scenario #7–11: Ancients' Anguish with a Scarab Sages PC. I love those kinds of moments.
Fantastic scenario. Of the two times I've ran it, that moment caused much turmoil in one party, and the other party easily agreed on the outcome.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. YES. And 100% YES. More scenarios that that reward doing the right thing ** spoiler omitted ** and less that reward doing the wrong one ** spoiler omitted **. Or if you must reward Chaotic/borderline evil behavior, at least allow for a choice that gives different rewards based on going with the Light side instead of the Dark. Good and Lawful characters get harassed enough by GMs it is nice to occasionally be rewarded for doing the right thing.More pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios. Got it!I'm pretty sure that chaotic neutral is the default alignment at my local group...It is the default alignment for a lot of people as it is the alignment that receives the least amount of grief from GMs and adventure authors.why are you defining the "pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios" as " ...doing the right thing... "?
Please realize that returning escaped slaves in Cheliax is doing something "pro-law, anti-chaos"...
Yeah. Like we said, good.
|
|
Yes. YES. And 100% YES. More scenarios that that reward doing the right thing ** spoiler omitted ** and less that reward doing the wrong one ** spoiler omitted **. Or if you must reward Chaotic/borderline evil behavior, at least allow for a choice that gives different rewards based on going with the Light side instead of the Dark. Good and Lawful characters get harassed enough by GMs it is nice to occasionally be rewarded for doing the right thing.More pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios. Got it!I'm pretty sure that chaotic neutral is the default alignment at my local group...It is the default alignment for a lot of people as it is the alignment that receives the least amount of grief from GMs and adventure authors.why are you defining the "pro-law, anti-chaos situations in scenarios" as " ...doing the right thing... "?
Please realize that returning escaped slaves in Cheliax is doing something "pro-law, anti-chaos"...
I wasn't, actually. My original post was regarding non-chaotic neutral behavior. Which would include both Good and Law. John was the one that specified Lawful, so I suppose I should have corrected that. Of course, "doing the right thing" is always subject to perspective but generally speaking, it would normally refer to what people consider good and lawful. There are plenty of exceptions, though, as you noted.