| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lower. What GOOD god would do that? :P{. . .}
The elf racial trait is a general. All elves, regardless of class, can have that. Oracle curses are *curses*. More over, the way the Oracle text reads, you have been empowered by a GOD. Your racial bonuses be danged, a god can fart and kill an entire continent.
{. . .}What a way to go . . . now I've got this vision of resulting strict regulation on the trafficking of beans, chili, and prunes in the Upper Planes . . . .
Cayden Cailean.
Not intentionally, mind you. But he would. Maybe that's what happened to Aroden?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I'm playing an oracle now, but the hard-pressed thing I keep hearing when I post a lot of questions (old D&D player) is "specific trumps general."
The elf racial trait is a general. All elves, regardless of class, can have that. Oracle curses are *curses*. More over, the way the Oracle text reads, you have been empowered by a GOD. Your racial bonuses be danged, a god can fart and kill an entire continent.
It's TECHNICALLY a valid choice. But the Oracle curse is caused by contact with a god. It overrides. I would suggest having him either pick a different racial trait or a different curse. If he wants one that's easy to circumnavigate, Tongues. Teach everyone the language you know as your curse's language, it's now mitigated for the cost of one skill point per player. Or, if he's level five, use the bonus language to pick Common (level five, Oracles get a second language that's in their during-combat limitation.)
But, to answer the question as I see it, you are ENTIRELY within your rights to override his racial immunity.
Did you read the race trait? "literally infused with the radiant power of the heaven"... So you're saying that because an ability granted to you from a god from the heavens bypasses another power from heaven...?
Also, the elf trait is general since all can take it... Then oracle is JUST AS GENERAL because all elves can take it. Curse from a god but the trait can be from a god. So I'm not seeing your point here.
God is upset about the curse? Why? IS there something that says the god WANTS or NEEDS you to take the penalties? Where does it say the gods get upset when someone tries to bypass the curse? Or is it just YOU don't like it?
It would be "ENTIRELY within your rights" to create a houserule against it but please to pretend it's anywhere close to what the rules say. As is, It's not "TECHNICALLY a valid choice" but just a valid choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
The elf racial trait is a general. All elves, regardless of class, can have that. Oracle curses are *curses*. More over, the way the Oracle text reads, you have been empowered by a GOD. Your racial bonuses be danged, a god can fart and kill an entire continent.
{. . .}What a way to go . . . now I've got this vision of resulting strict regulation on the trafficking of beans, chili, and prunes in the Upper Planes . . . .
Gods have to watch for ANY infraction after all. If you aren't watching every follower every instant of every day they may try to jaywalk... The road to hell is paved with thinking out of the box... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will remind you that Blindness is a PERMANENT DURATION 2nd level Arcane Spell that functions whenever you cast it, and that Oracle's Burden, in this case, only provides a 1 round duration of Blindness assuming the enemy is in bright light. So, not only are the applications a lot less, but the power level is a lot less as well, and they are equal level spells.
The fact that you're nerfing one simply because they took a trait to circumvent penalties that are comparatively not that bad, compared to another option that's infinitely more powerful, is both baffling and ridiculous.
That's a fair arguement, though blindness/deafness is already on the Oracle spell list as a 3rd level spell, so if they just want to blind people while avoiding my predetermined consequences, it is certainly an option if they just wait to learn the spell normally. They could also just use a dirty trick manuver, if blinding for a single round is the entire goal.
Oracles Burden would remain in effect for 1 minute/level, which could potentially leave the target blind for that entire duration.
Beyond the level and the duration, the only real difference between the spells is that the Oracles Burden is resisted by a will save and the Blindness/Deafness is resisted by a fort save. I don't really think this matters much, it is a worthy note.
I do think the intention of Oracle's Burden is that the target suffers as the Oracle does, so the spell is more powerful when the Oracle is more crippled. I would allow an immune PC to do it once, at high cost (like being reincarnated into a race that isn't immune), but I don't think they should be able to spam it while not being burdened, as that goes beyond the intentions of the spell.
And, for the record, I certainly wouldn't create encounters to attempt force the PC to need to use the spell in this manner.
Still so much weaker than the Arcane equivalent. You're also assuming that Light Blindness makes you blind constantly, but only when you're constantly entering and exiting areas of bright and non-bright light, since the blindness only occurs for the first round of entering the affected area, and then remains a -1 to attack rolls thereafter. Compared to a PERMANENT BLINDNESS DURATION effect, I'll take my chances with the Light Blindness effect any day of the week, since really, all you're doing is trading tit-for-tat in relation to action economy.
Just because a PC found a way to cope with his disabilities (if you can call it that) doesn't mean the player can't affect people with the disability that he is (to this day) coping with. Stating that he spontaneously reincarnates for casting such a spell is so far off the reservation that you might as well just ban the spell from even being cast, even if the only reason you do so is because you don't like it.
EDIT: Yay! My post went through!
After I'd realized that I was likely ninja'd in the intervening three pages.
Ah, well.
EDIT 2: yup, and on the bottom of the page I was reading and the top of the next. Look: no one ever said I wasn't slow... >.>
You can kill the lame oracles horse. You can't kill the immunity. The oracle in the case of immunity to light-blindness and using the shadowbound curse permanently removes the penalties for the curse. This isn't temporarily circumventing the curse's drawback, it's removing it, which only a god can do.
No. If your racial traits were suppressed or you changed races the curse would impact you. It is like a lame oracle getting a horse.Agreed. Having a horse is not a permanent, intrinsic racial quality. The horse's base movement is unaffected by the oracle's lame curse. The lame oracle's movement remains reduced, not eliminated in a permanent, intrinsic way.
And to follow up, the argument that an elf's optional immunity to light-blindness supersedes the shadowbound curse's hindrance is a specific case of the general argument that racial qualities supersede class abilities.
Which may be the case, but it is equally arguable (no one has shown me yet how it isn't equally arguable, other than just insisting that it isn't) that class abilities, in general, supersede racial qualities in the event of a conflict.
This argument seems to boil down to:
"The immunities rules say you never lose them unless explicitly stated! Immunities beat oracle curses!"
"The oracle curse rules say you never get rid of it unless the gods intervene! Oracle curses beat immunities!"Whichever side one comes down on probably seems to one like the obvious answer and everyone else is wrong, but there really isn't any reason to pick one over the other, considering only the two specific rules in question.
... actually... you can remove an elf's lightbringer trait.
So, for the record, I was totally on board with both concepts that were put forth; I found both interpretations viable.
However, this one post suddenly hit me:
Agreed. Having a horse is not a permanent, intrinsic racial quality. The horse's base movement is unaffected by the oracle's lame curse. The lame oracle's movement remains reduced, not eliminated in a permanent, intrinsic way.
... and...
You can kill the lame oracles horse. You can't kill the immunity.
... mean that you could get rid of it (making it "permanent" but not really), if you could change your race*.
But the spell reincarnate becomes an instant method of removing said element. And, you may be thinking, it's not an attack, or method of assault, but, secretly, it totally is.
And a "horse" isn't the only method of granting a lame oracle extra movement, merely the most pedestrian and mundane.
Give them continuous fly and/or overland flight, and you're done - no need to worry about those speeds anymore. (Maybe for swim speed, but, frankly, nobody likes to swim**, and if they did for some reason, simple spells would overcome that, too.)
Sure, there are ways of shutting those things down, but there are ways of making it obnoxious enough that only extremely high level, powerful, and/or obnoxious abilities could do so in those cases.
Now, this doesn't actually answer the whole, "Which one takes precedence?" question, and I actually really like the arguments on both sides... but it occurred to me how directly and easily one could negate (intentionally or not) another's race-based immunity, while still leaving them with the curse, and thus having them effected by it.
*
No. If your racial traits were suppressed or you changed races the curse would impact you. It is like a lame oracle getting a horse.
** ***
***
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zarius... could you please quote the rules that back up literally anything you just said.
But the Oracle curse is caused by contact with a god. It overrides.
That isn't a rule.
But, to answer the question as I see it, you are ENTIRELY within your rights to override his racial immunity.
While not correct from a rules perspective.
This is true ONLY because a GM could change anything they want without backing in the rules.
My own GM also points out that the curse SPELL would trump his racial perk, and as such a permanent curse that literally can't be lifted without direct divine intervention (not even Wish or Miracle can take an oracle's curse), so there should be no mechanical way the racial would override.
Rules citation required.
I assume your talking about Bestow Curse? If an Elf with Lightbringer was given a curse from that spell that made then Blind or Dazzled from light it wouldn't do anything.
Lightbringer makes you immune to "light-based blindness and dazzle effects". This doesn't change just because of a curse.
Magic trumps racial traits, if the two should conflict.
Prove it in the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's TECHNICALLY a valid choice. But the Oracle curse is caused by contact with a god. It overrides. I would suggest having him either pick a different racial trait or a different curse. If he wants one that's easy to circumnavigate, Tongues. Teach everyone the language you know as your curse's language, it's now mitigated for the cost of one skill point per player. Or, if he's level five, use the bonus language to pick Common (level five, Oracles get a second language that's in their during-combat limitation.)
Doesn't really mitigate the curse at all. The main detriment of the curse is that you can't cast language dependent spells on targets that don't share your language. So you can't use Command, Enthrall, Castigate, or Forbid Action, plus your Summoned Monsters are unable to recieve orders beyond "Attack" if you lack a shared language.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My own GM also points out that the curse SPELL would trump his racial perk, and as such a permanent curse that literally can't be lifted without direct divine intervention (not even Wish or Miracle can take an oracle's curse), so there should be no mechanical way the racial would override. Magic trumps racial traits, if the two should conflict.a miracle is divine intervention though.....
Was that Miracle from a deity?
No?
Then it doesn't remove it.
Regardless, Zarius' GM houseruling the racial trait to not circumvent the curse effects is just that: A houserule. A fairly reasonable houserule, I might add, since the intent of the curse is that a player must cope with the penalties it accrued in exchange for their increased power.
But the rules don't care about any of that. The only thing the rules care about are trying to actually remove the curse. Not circumventing the curse, not preventing the curse from ever actually affecting your playstyle, but removing the curse itself is the only time that it calls for something beyond the typical requirements to fix it.
Anything else associated with the curse? Functions as normal. So anything which gives you immunities to whatever the curse effects are still work to remove whatever the effects of the curse actually are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I missed this but I have a question. Shadowbound Curse is from where? Because the only place I have seen ShadowBound anything is a Corruption which is completely different then an Oracle Curse. If that his argument Corruptions being what they are should override anything being how nasty they are. Corruptions in my opinion override natural immunities since they almost always occur after birth. So he has Lightbringer to start, then gets the Corruption. The Corruption essentially destroys the immunities.
Horror Realms adds curses for all the corruptions. Head over to Curses
miracle is you asking your god for help so yes its direct divine interventionMy own GM also points out that the curse SPELL would trump his racial perk, and as such a permanent curse that literally can't be lifted without direct divine intervention (not even Wish or Miracle can take an oracle's curse), so there should be no mechanical way the racial would override. Magic trumps racial traits, if the two should conflict.a miracle is divine intervention though.....Was that Miracle from a deity?
No?
Then it doesn't remove it.
Regardless, Zarius' GM houseruling the racial trait to not circumvent the curse effects is just that: A houserule. A fairly reasonable houserule, I might add, since the intent of the curse is that a player must cope with the penalties it accrued in exchange for their increased power.
But the rules don't care about any of that. The only thing the rules care about are trying to actually remove the curse. Not circumventing the curse, not preventing the curse from ever actually affecting your playstyle, but removing the curse itself is the only time that it calls for something beyond the typical requirements to fix it.
Anything else associated with the curse? Functions as normal. So anything which gives you immunities to whatever the curse effects are still work to remove whatever the effects of the curse actually are.
Not really. Divine Intervention would be the deity doing so of its own accord, without the beseeching of meager ants begging for their power. Requesting the deity to do so isn't exactly a case of divine intervention, as most every worshipper may pray to their God(s) for whatever the case might be: Victory, survival, or even celebration. Just because a Cleric can cast a spell to call upon the deity's power doesn't make it Divine Intervention.
Besides that point, there is this clause:
In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused.
The deity, usually ran by the GM, can easily refuse the request simply because they value their accursed existence more than their non-cursed existence.
Lastly, what about an Oracle who doesn't worship a deity at all? Sure, while it's not an option for PFS, the idea that an Oracle can worship more generic patrons means that they won't ever be able to cast Miracle to rid themselves of their own curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, a Miracle could work on a curse. It'd fall under "a very powerful request" and it would be up to the DM to allow it. After a few drink and a free pizza maybe he'll let it slide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Lastly, what about an Oracle who doesn't worship a deity at all? Sure, while it's not an option for PFS, the idea that an Oracle can worship more generic patrons means that they won't ever be able to cast Miracle to rid themselves of their own curse.
I thought PFS just required deities for Clerics, Inquisitors, Order of the Star Cavaliers/Samurais, Paladins, and Warpriests, while non-deity-worshipping Druids, Oracles, and Rangers (and Hunters?) are fine there. (Even Googled for this, although I turned up old posts, so something might have changed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so as far as the op is concerned would this be accurate:
if the rules dont say one way or the other ask the gm?
It's pretty simple: Immunity makes you immune to things and curses don't say they bypass curses. Hence, it answers itself. Now the DM may houserule something else. SO the question is "dm, do you have any houserules I should know?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The oracle is a weird one, as it isn't the Oracle that prays to the deity for divine power, it's the the deity that gives the divine power without prayer (or choice). As I understand it, the Oracle PC has no control over which deity is supplying them power, and it may be a different deity than the one the worship.
Admittedly I don't like what the player is doing with his Oracle. He has taken a curse and then found a loophole to negate it. I think how he's done it is ass backwards and a waste but it's his character. I certainly would question his character seeing how he's done things seems more shady then honest.
This is the kind of comment that mystifies me. If the player had been talking about a lame oracle and taking a level of barbarian to get his speed back, there wouldn't be cries of you "found a loophole to negate it"!!! Both characters are taking a negative to their character [lightbringer = suboptimal race, barbarian slows casting] but only one has a stigma of a rules lawyer/gamebreaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I question the why of it more then anything. This is a build that when finished is very sub optimal. The fact he's questioning if this is legal is another thing that makes me uneasy. Others have gave easier examples of how to live with the Oracles Curse more then negate it. He seems intent on removing it entirely. He's asking if what he is doing is legal. By book rules I'd say yes but the fact he is asking and several people do question or not if it should be legal makes me concerned.
Regarding the Barbarian for a spd boost to remove Lame. It would draw criticism as well. Here's one thing to note though. There is a Prestige Class made specifically for the Oracle and Barbarian together.
People ask if something is rules legal all the time, I don't see how that makes any difference here than it does for any other poster who requests if something is legal or not. It happens in PFS all the damn time since they change what is and isn't legal like the drop of a hat, and the players are expected to know every single change that was made on the same token (or play a crappy pre-gen and have their character screwed over).
Just because there is a Prestige Class that can (attempt to) mesh two classes together doesn't mean much, since we have other concepts (Archetypes and Hybrid Classes are just a couple examples of things) that do the same thing. It's also not exactly a precedent for "It's okay," since we can have rules of granting things like Constant True Strike for a mere 2,000 gold (and likewise saying that it's most likely improper pricing due to power gauging requirements).
The point graystone is making is that, between two different players, with two different playstyles, and two different means of "loopholing" their curses, they should both equally be scrutinized harshly. Whereas what we've seen is a bunch of favoritism just because we have more published options for one subject in comparison to the other. Which I will again point out, is not exactly a precedent for saying it's okay.
It's also not a question of "Is this okay," it's a question of "Does this work?" And the answer for that is quite clear: Yes. Anyone who stipulates otherwise is houseruling (even if reasonably).
The point graystone is making is that, between two different players, with two different playstyles, and two different means of "loopholing" their curses, they should both equally be scrutinized harshly. Whereas what we've seen is a bunch of favoritism just because we have more published options for one subject in comparison to the other. Which I will again point out, is not exactly a precedent for saying it's okay.
It's also not a question of "Is this okay," it's a question of "Does this work?" And the answer for that is quite clear: Yes. Anyone who stipulates otherwise is houseruling (even if reasonably).
Exactly. It's the disingenuous and unequal outrage that bothers me the most. If it truly was a case of "It would draw criticism as well" that would be fine, but that hasn't been the case.
The next bothersome thing is the mental gymnastics some go to to make it seem like their visceral dislike of that combo is an actual rule. It's one thing to argue how it should/could be written to match your idea of how the should play: It's another to make it seem that your unsupported view of it is the correct one without factual evidence.
I question the why of it more then anything
I gave several reasons for the why above as have others.
This is a build that when finished is very sub optimal.
That isn't an issue. A 12 int wizard is completely legal and very suboptimal. If anything, it's being that way makes it easy to see it's not about powergaming. Someone who likes 'cheese' isn't looking for 'suboptimal'.
The fact he's questioning if this is legal is another thing that makes me uneasy.
Asking questions is bad... Is this Paranoia?
Yeah, this seems to happen far more than it should in the Rules forum.The next bothersome thing is the mental gymnastics some go to to make it seem like their visceral dislike of that combo is an actual rule. It's one thing to argue how it should/could be written to match your idea of how the should play: It's another to make it seem that your unsupported view of it is the correct one without factual evidence.
Sigh... Too true. It's one thing if it's a genuine wording issue that can be read different ways. That I can understand. It's when people are adding things into the wording to make their point that drives me crazy. I guess I shouldn't let it bother me so much.
Someone who likes 'cheese' isn't looking for 'suboptimal'.
You say that, but it disagrees with experimental evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say that, but it disagrees with experimental evidence.Someone who likes 'cheese' isn't looking for 'suboptimal'.
That's not what my hypothetical study says... :P
|
|
Sigh... Too true. It's one thing if it's a genuine wording issue that can be read different ways. That I can understand. It's when people are adding things into the wording to make their point that drives me crazy. I guess I shouldn't let it bother me so much.Yeah, this seems to happen far more than it should in the Rules forum.The next bothersome thing is the mental gymnastics some go to to make it seem like their visceral dislike of that combo is an actual rule. It's one thing to argue how it should/could be written to match your idea of how the should play: It's another to make it seem that your unsupported view of it is the correct one without factual evidence.
GMs need to be clear to their players, that unless a thread directly asks the question and answers that question, that the thread doesn't answer the question. Asking questions in a round about way should not be considered by the GM as the forum endorsing a rules interpretation.
|
|
I question the why of it more then anything. This is a build that when finished is very sub optimal. The fact he's questioning if this is legal is another thing that makes me uneasy. Others have gave easier examples of how to live with the Oracles Curse more then negate it. He seems intent on removing it entirely. He's asking if what he is doing is legal. By book rules I'd say yes but the fact he is asking and several people do question or not if it should be legal makes me concerned.
Regarding the Barbarian for a spd boost to remove Lame. It would draw criticism as well. Here's one thing to note though. There is a Prestige Class made specifically for the Oracle and Barbarian together.
If it's a round-about way of asking the question, then the actual question is probably more along the lines of, "Can Oracle Curses be negated/circumvented by other abilties (including racial ones)?"
And judging by the responses, the answer for PFS is, "Expect table variation," and for non-PFS it is, "Ask your GM."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I question the why of it more then anything. This is a build that when finished is very sub optimal. The fact he's questioning if this is legal is another thing that makes me uneasy. Others have gave easier examples of how to live with the Oracles Curse more then negate it. He seems intent on removing it entirely. He's asking if what he is doing is legal. By book rules I'd say yes but the fact he is asking and several people do question or not if it should be legal makes me concerned.
Regarding the Barbarian for a spd boost to remove Lame. It would draw criticism as well. Here's one thing to note though. There is a Prestige Class made specifically for the Oracle and Barbarian together.If it's a round-about way of asking the question, then the actual question is probably more along the lines of, "Can Oracle Curses be negated/circumvented by other abilties (including racial ones)?"
And judging by the responses, the answer for PFS is, "Expect table variation," and for non-PFS it is, "Ask your GM."
Actually, the responses were "I hate that it can work that way, so it doesn't work that way because I don't want it to," and "It's cheese, which means by default it won't work."
Most specifically, your response was "GM-Ex-Machina the player's initial character choices if he attempted to do this combination because I think he's cheating the system," which is actually a combination of both interpretations into a third interpretation that just makes me scratch my head since it's quite clearly an underpowered option.
Nature Oracles who can get Charisma to Everything and can pump their Charisma to near infinite levels via their Capstone is okay (Enjoy the spells being cast with DC 100 and it being perfectly rules-legal), but an Oracle trying to circumvent their chosen curse with a suboptimal choice?
"Blasphemy! Burn the heretic, cleanse the infidel, purify the sacrilege that dare taints my sacred gaming table that allows other broken options except the one that's totally not broken because I don't see the real big picture!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most specifically, your response was "GM-Ex-Machina the player's initial character choices if he attempted to do this combination because I think he's cheating the system," which is actually a combination of both interpretations into a third interpretation that just makes me scratch my head since it's quite clearly an underpowered option.
No. I have two responses on this thread. One is the PFS way to handle it. The other one you are referencing is how I'd answer if I was the GM in a home game and you asked me.
So, for summary, I describe this as two answers, for home games "Ask the GM," and for PFS games, "Expect Table Variation."
And there's been more than a couple conflicting views on how the Oracle's curse should function within this thread, that's why I conclude for PFS, "Expect Table Variation." Basically, unless we all agree, "Expect Table Variation."
Most specifically, your response was "GM-Ex-Machina the player's initial character choices if he attempted to do this combination because I think he's cheating the system," which is actually a combination of both interpretations into a third interpretation that just makes me scratch my head since it's quite clearly an underpowered option.No. I have two responses on this thread. One is the PFS way to handle it. The other one you are referencing is how I'd answer if I was the GM in a home game and you asked me.
So, for summary, I describe this as two answers, for home games "Ask the GM," and for PFS games, "Expect Table Variation."
And there's been more than a couple conflicting views on how the Oracle's curse should function within this thread, that's why I conclude for PFS, "Expect Table Variation." Basically, unless we all agree, "Expect Table Variation."
Then clearly you didn't understand the point behind my statements.
The point is that the rules are quite clear how these functions interact, people are posting their disgust about the rules interaction, stating that they wouldn't allow it at their tables, and treating that as if it were what the rules actually were.
PFS wouldn't go through table variation unless the GM is new/a moron and has no idea what he's doing, and home games should be quite clear that their professing of the rules interaction is a houserule, and not what the rule actually is.
|
|
PFS wouldn't go through table variation unless the GM is new/a moron and has no idea what he's doing, and home games should be quite clear that their professing of the rules interaction is a houserule, and not what the rule actually is.
Because people with opposing viewpoints must be morons, or just new....
Pathfinder has lots of rules that are clearly written, but you'll still find lots of table variation because there is a difference between what the rule says and what most people believe the rule means. And sometimes there's a third group, regarding what the rule was intended to say and mean. I suggest you refrain from assuming a lack of intelligence or experience if a GM has a differing opinon on what the rules are.
I agree with you Darksol. The rules are clear, and I also would rather the rules were different. Picking a curse that you are immune to seems to be counter to the flavor of the oracle class. Nothing more or less. And I don't like game breaking things either. No DC100 please. But if I am GM, I can home rule as I see fit to address things that I don't like about the rules. Just need to be clear with the players that that is the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest you refrain from assuming a lack of intelligence or experience if a GM has a differing opinon on what the rules are.Having a different opinion on a vague or unclear ruling is one thing. It's when rules that are fairly clearly written are willfully ignored or altered that the issues Darksol is bringing up matter.
Precisely.
We have it written, clear as day, that deific intervention is only required for dispelling or removing the curse that the Oracle is afflicted by. Anything else regarding the curse, such as amplifying, bestowing, or negating the raw effects of the curse, functions as normal, because we already have a specific requirement (deific intervention) applying to a specific alteration regarding the curse (removal or dispelling), and if the rule was to include negating the effects of the curse, then that would've been spelled out as well, especially since it would be easy to include in the text by adding a couple words that should most likely not interfere with the wordwrapping of the Hardcovers.
People can say that circumventing the curse effects defeats the entire purpose of the feature all they want, or even that the text written isn't intended to allow characters to circumvent the curse. But at the end of the day, they have A. no evidence, either from an upcoming Errata/FAQ, or even a developer comment, to support that claim of intention, and B. otherwise made houserules and attempt to profess their houserules as the actual rules of the game.
The former means that the argument is weak and only has a personal basis that can be easily trumped by the actual rules text, the latter is disingenuous and misleading to people who actually seek a legitimate answer (especially in relation to PFS). Both aren't acceptable or even appropriate to post about as a rules forum answer anymore than GM FIAT, which I will reiterate, is more of a failsafe than an ironclad rule (which, again, is especially in relation to PFS).
I'll reiterate my point again: You can dislike the rule, and houserule it for your table as much as you want, and that's fine. Professing your dislike of the rules and treating your houserules as actual rules, when discussing in the Rules Question Forums, is not okay in any circumstance except for when the rules fail to properly answer the question (and therefore GM FIAT is the only way to fix it). And this is certainly not one of those cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I offended anyone I apologize.
Not offended. You just hit a bit of a nerve.
Some rules are clear, some are not. I think most people believe this rule falls into the 'clear' category.
I'll reiterate my point again: You can dislike the rule, and houserule it for your table as much as you want, and that's fine. Professing your dislike of the rules and treating your houserules as actual rules, when discussing in the Rules Question Forums, is not okay in any circumstance except for when the rules fail to properly answer the question (and therefore GM FIAT is the only way to fix it). And this is certainly not one of those cases.
Yep, 100% in agreement.
Although I will say that just because a rule is clear as day doesn't mean that the Dev's will not come in and say some unwritten rule means we've been doing it wrong... [see magic bows and ammo FAQ, 'hands', ect] Even so, they're the only one that get to use unwritten rules in a rules debate. :P
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The former means that the argument is weak and only has a personal basis that can be easily trumped by the actual rules text, the latter is disingenuous and misleading to people who actually seek a legitimate answer (especially in relation to PFS). Both aren't acceptable or even appropriate to post about as a rules forum answer anymore than GM FIAT, which I will reiterate, is more of a failsafe than an ironclad rule (which, again, is especially in relation to PFS)....
"Expect table variation" doesn't mean I disagree with your rules interpretation, it means that on this forum many have voiced conflicting understanding of what this one means, so you could reasonably expect conflicting understandings at random PFS tables. I do not think this is an unfounded or unreasonable conclusion based on the responses from this thread.
And, regarding home games, asking the GM is a great way to clarify any rules, no matter how obvious they appear to you. They don't need to be a "Moron or new player" to benefit from asking the GM about a rule combination that will come up in game. Ensuring that everyone is on the same page, is rather important to enjoying a home game.
"Expect table variation"
It's more a case of "expect house rules" and I think that is the point of contention.
it means that on this forum many have voiced conflicting understanding of what this one means
There really haven't been any misunderstandings but those that had a desire to have the rules do something they don't. In a setting like PFS, I would hope that they would consistently rule the right way on this one: I would think a DM in that setting that ruled on personal likes and dislikes over the actual words on the page wouldn't be doing it long.
Calling it a "conflicting understanding" really gives it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. It's pure house rule territory. After all, we aren't debating questionable wording here.
And, regarding home games, asking the GM is a great way to clarify any rules
No arguments here, but this is unrelated to this rule or really any other in particular: That's because it's about how the DM does or doesn't follow the rules. A DM clarifying the rule may be that he doesn't use it, it's modified or it works as/is. Then if the rule used is questionable, you get to "conflicting understanding".
Next time I see my player whose PC is an oracle with the Haunted curse I'm gonna kiss him (just a bro kiss, no homo, it's like a normal kiss, but without the kiss).
My opinion, no big deal. Inside the rules, it's legal. Now I'm curious as to how one should interpret in the background of the character those numbers.
The radiant power of the heavens are not intrisically Gods, I might be wrong though.
Now, the oracle curses. Unless I missed something in the text, nothing says what or who is cause of the curse. A bit of light on this matter will be kindly appreciated.
Right now I can only think of some kind of certain Drunken God saying: hey, I like this dude, I'm gonna curse him with something that he's already inmune, cause he rocks! No objections right?
Back to my personal case. My player's oracle is a direct servant of a Goddess. So we both agreed that should be logical that the curse was bestowed by an enemy God. Mine is a home game, for what matters.
Just a little captain obvius remembering if I may. Rules are equal to everyone on the table, for good or ill. This case is menial compared to other cheesy ones. But sometimes is fair to let everyone on the table know about what a certain player is about to do.
Right now I can only think of some kind of certain Drunken God saying
Remember, chaotic alignments are 1/3 of all alignments. S0 does it seem unusual that there would be chaotic choices in the mix? They range from Elder Mythos [totally alien thinking], Asmodeus [loopholes and vague wording are part of every law], Kofusachi [Abundance, happiness, prosperity/looking for the happiest result] and Sun Wukong [monkey king, well it looked interesting to do]. Only 1/3 of alignments are Lawful, IE worrying about the rule, like curses are meant to be hindrances.
So maybe the curse giver does it on a whim, to 'get on over' on another deity, because it makes the character the happiest or because of a reason human minds can't comprehend. This is just from 4 gods. Or if we go with your option, too drunk to remember why...
Secondly, I'll note that both reincarnated and died are in the random background generator In Ultimate Campaign. So having a different race that you started with isn't only possible but an expected possibility.
Thirdly, Ultimate Campaign also allows for retraining. This would allow a character that was originally affected by the curse to find a way to bypass it after they get it. In this case an elf without any optional race traits could at any time retrain to get Lightbringer by removing Elven Immunities and Elven Magic.
So it makes sense that not all 'gods' are going to follow the rules... scratch that, follow the guidelines. It makes sense that race can change as you have a background chart with options that'd allow race change. It also makes sense in that race traits are mutable.
So I can see MANY ways it fits into the rules of the world. I actually have an issue figuring how it would be blocked to disallow the option: What makes THIS rule immutable to every divine being ever spawned in the know and unknown multiverse?
Many thanks for your answers, since we only have a few basic books sometimes is hard to think 'outside of my little island'. I'm starting to see Ultimate Campaign worthy of acquisition.