| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little strange that you asked for clarification on something, and then when people inform you of what's correct (that targets don't need to be willing because the spell does not say willing on 3-action) get mad at them for the clarification.But that is not what the spell is saying! As I have repeated several times, the Targets section of the spell defines what the Targets are. The 3-action does not change the Targets and thus does not need to state that the Targets need to be willing because it is already been defined.
I am confused by this, because the 3-action version explicitly changes the targets of the spell. That is the only thing it does, really. It specifically says "This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst."
It is specifically telling you that it is changing the targets of the spell.
I am confused by this, because the 3-action version explicitly changes the targets of the spell. That is the only thing it does, really. It specifically says "This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst."
It is specifically telling you that it is changing the targets of the spell.
They are saying that it doesn't change the willing element of targeting. So it targets all living and undead creatures within the AoE but that isn't changing the willing element.
I don't agree that this is the intended reading btw, just saying that I can see how it can be read that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I think the potential stumbling block is less line and more the body of the text itself, which specifies "willing living" and "undead" when describing how the spell functions.
I find the logic of an enemy being unwilling to accept a burst Heal not valid. Why would a bad guy not want to get healing from their enemy? It is counter-intuitive.
Spellwrack + long duration 1-action focus spell = 2d12 persistent force damage with no save. Nice. I wanna do that to ghosts.
Or Undeath's Blessing on an enemy so Heal spells will now damage him. So sad you were a Healing Font Cleric...Spells with willing targets have positive effects most of the time, but there are some of them you don't want to take in some specific situations. By default, enemies refuse all willing target spells because they have hard time thinking your Cleric is casting beneficial spells on them.
That's actually the whole point of the words "willing target". If the spell is only beneficial, then what is the point for the target to be willing?
By default, enemies refuse all willing target spells because they have hard time thinking your Cleric is casting beneficial spells on them.
That's actually the whole point of the words "willing target". If the spell is only beneficial, then what is the point for the target to be willing?I go with the opposite.
Given a fight which sees let's say 2 players and 4 enemies in melee range, if the cleric attempts to aoe healing, he has to deal with enemies too.
Yes, clearly. It's because 3-action Heal doesn't target willing targets but all targets. If it was targetting only willing targets, enemies would refuse it and that would mean Selective Energy would be useless.
Yes, clearly. It's because 3-action Heal doesn't target willing targets but all targets. If it was targetting only willing targets, enemies would refuse it and that would mean Selective Energy would be useless.By default, enemies refuse all willing target spells because they have hard time thinking your Cleric is casting beneficial spells on them.
That's actually the whole point of the words "willing target". If the spell is only beneficial, then what is the point for the target to be willing?I go with the opposite.
Given a fight which sees let's say 2 players and 4 enemies in melee range, if the cleric attempts to aoe healing, he has to deal with enemies too.
You're assuming willingness is an in-game choice, which means that unconscious PCs cannot be healed by 1-action or 2-action Heals.
Unless there's another rule I'm unaware of (certainly a possibility), I don't envy you explaining that to your players.I believe the default is willing. Otherwise who'd bother with Selective Energy? (Among Heal Clerics. Harm Clerics would still have reason.)
|
Spellwrack + long duration 1-action focus spell = 2d12 persistent force damage with no save. Nice. I wanna do that to ghosts.
Spellwrack calls for a Will save so I am not sure what you are referencing about no save. Are you saying after the failed Will would there be persistent force damage? Yes, because that is how SpellWrack works.
By default, enemies refuse all willing target spells because they have hard time thinking your Cleric is casting beneficial spells on them.
I have never really thought this but I don't recall a time where enemies were unwilling to accept channels in 1e nor do have I seen it in 2e. Just never seen it happen. As GM, the thought that NPCs would automatically be unwilling to PC spells has never occurred to me.
|
|
Yes, clearly. It's because 3-action Heal doesn't target willing targets but all targets. If it was targetting only willing targets, enemies would refuse it and that would mean Selective Energy would be useless.
This is only true if enemies ALWAYS refuses the healing. I don't believe that will be true in all cases.
Selective Energy would not be useless if enemies could refuse. It removes the choice they would have otherwise been able to make.
Please take a moment and look at this from a different angle.
An I will bring up again that the Heal spell defines what Targets are for the spell, not just part of the spell.
An I will bring up again that the Heal spell defines what Targets are for the spell, not just part of the spell.
You keep ignoring when people say that the 3-action version explicitly specifies different targets, though.
|
|
An I will bring up again that the Heal spell defines what Targets are for the spell, not just part of the spell.You keep ignoring when people say that the 3-action version explicitly specifies different targets, though.
No, I am not ignoring that. I just don't agree that the 3-action Heal explicitly changes the definition of Targets as defined by Targets section of the spell.
What I see happening is that people are ignoring the spell definitions (see above on Reading a Spell) that defines what the Targets are and just going by what the language of the spell is saying. We can't do that. There is reason why Targets was defined. And it is defined for the WHOLE spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and then the definition changes when you use it as 3-actions. Says it right in the spell. If we're moving the goalposts to "the rules text of the spell is meaningless", I'm going to start casting first level heals that do 10d8+80 on my party members since I get to ignore what the spell says.
|
|
I am sure the party would vote you the best healer ever!
But I don't see it as moving the goal posts. I see it as applying the logic (maybe it is just my logic) of the spell definition and how we have been instructed to Read a Spell.
I don't see the definition of Targets changing with the 3-action Heal. I am referencing to the Targets definition at the beginning of spell and applying it to "This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst."
The whole question about willing or not is actually a very small corner case. In all games I have played in 2e, a burst Heal heals everyone, PCs and NPCs alike.
And since I GM Society games, at my tables, I will remind people that I read the 3-action Heal as allowing them to decide if they are willing. To do otherwise will violate the "Don't be a jerk" rule of Society play. Yep, table variance!
An interesting discussion so far but I feel as if everyone giving arguments against me have not address the "Reading a Spell" and "Targets" sections of the rules. It is these two sections that I am basing my interpretation, not the just what I read in Heal spell.
Yes, clearly. It's because 3-action Heal doesn't target willing targets but all targets. If it was targetting only willing targets, enemies would refuse it and that would mean Selective Energy would be useless.By default, enemies refuse all willing target spells because they have hard time thinking your Cleric is casting beneficial spells on them.
That's actually the whole point of the words "willing target". If the spell is only beneficial, then what is the point for the target to be willing?I go with the opposite.
Given a fight which sees let's say 2 players and 4 enemies in melee range, if the cleric attempts to aoe healing, he has to deal with enemies too.
You're assuming willingness is an in-game choice, which means that unconscious PCs cannot be healed by 1-action or 2-action Heals.
Unless there's another rule I'm unaware of (certainly a possibility), I don't envy you explaining that to your players.I believe the default is willing. Otherwise who'd bother with Selective Energy? (Among Heal Clerics. Harm Clerics would still have reason.)
In my opinion, willingness is an in-game choice. If the Cleric wants to cast Heal on the follower of the Laws of Mortality, he refuses because his character refuses. But if he was unconscious, he would have accepted because unconscious characters accept all willing spells. The default is willing if you don't have the ability to make the choice. But if you have this ability, there is no default.
As such, no one will accept spells from the enemy if you don't know what the enemy is casting on you.Spellwrack + long duration 1-action focus spell = 2d12 persistent force damage with no save. Nice. I wanna do that to ghosts.
Spellwrack calls for a Will save so I am not sure what you are referencing about no save. Are you saying after the failed Will would there be persistent force damage? Yes, because that is how SpellWrack works.
Even if you succeed at the save you are affected by Spellwrack.
By default, enemies refuse all willing target spells because they have hard time thinking your Cleric is casting beneficial spells on them.I have never really thought this but I don't recall a time where enemies were unwilling to accept channels in 1e nor do have I seen it in 2e. Just never seen it happen. As GM, the thought that NPCs would automatically be unwilling to PC spells has never occurred to me.
Reread the rules, there is no notion of willing for 1e channel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, willingness is an in-game choice. If the Cleric wants to cast Heal on the follower of the Laws of Mortality, he refuses because his character refuses. But if he was unconscious, he would have accepted because unconscious characters accept all willing spells. The default is willing if you don't have the ability to make the choice. But if you have this ability, there is no default.
As such, no one will accept spells from the enemy if you don't know what the enemy is casting on you.
That is less an opinion and more of a house rule given how specific the book is on targets and willing status.
Completely fine of course, I fully support roleplay reasoning being apllied to meta mechanics :).
Just making it clear that the CRB is unambiguous on this.
In my opinion, willingness is an in-game choice. If the Cleric wants to cast Heal on the follower of the Laws of Mortality, he refuses because his character refuses. But if he was unconscious, he would have accepted because unconscious characters accept all willing spells. The default is willing if you don't have the ability to make the choice. But if you have this ability, there is no default.
As such, no one will accept spells from the enemy if you don't know what the enemy is casting on you.That is less an opinion and more of a house rule given how specific the book is on targets and willing status.
Completely fine of course, I fully support roleplay reasoning being apllied to meta mechanics :).
Just making it clear that the CRB is unambiguous on this.
True, it's more of a house rule.
Still, in the case of enemies, it isn't much. If they don't recognize the spell, they have to make the choice of willingness without knowing anything about the spell. Considering that they are willing in this situation because they are pretty sure the Cleric is casting a 3-action Heal they should no nothing about is clearly some case of metagaming. It's the same than animals stepping when they are next to a Fighter but not to other classes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They said the divine character wouldn’t want to party up with someone who follows the Laws of Mortality, which is vastly different than your issue.Which is still wrong and unenforceable. They would need to cope with each other. Unless the players want the perfect harmony between characters and just can't agree to the point of leaving a group.
How would you even imagine that? Player A:"I'm playing a character following the Laws of Mortality." Player B with a cleric:"No you don't, choose another." And player A agrees. Like this? O_o
BTW the player A doesn't even have to tell much about his character to anyone apart from a GM.
With all due respect, the Edicts/Anathema of the Laws of Mortality pretty much scream 'Does Not Play Well With Others' when those others are divine characters or organizations, which are not insignificant in most groups or campaigns: A GM should be at least a little bit wary of allowing such a character into most campaigns as it can significantly change the way the party interacts with the world and each other (Is the GM now obligated to add non-divine casters everywhere to accommodate a character who refuses to let a cleric remove a condition from him? Is the character a hypocrite if he fights opponents who have been debuffed by the party cleric?).
|
"Which is still wrong and unenforceable."
... what are you going to do? Tie the Divine Sorcerer player to the chair and force them to play at gun point?
You can't force players/player characters to get along, something would have to give or change, whether that means rolling up new character(s) or sitting the game out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how it works.
Rahadoumi character: Hey, because of my personal beliefs, please don't cast divine magic on me. I won't judge you for using it on other people though, as I am not a meanypants and don't expect you to share my beliefs.
Cleric: Sure, I will try my best to exclude you from my spells, though if it's life or death for other people, you might get a bit on you if I can't get into a position that shapes the effect to avoid you, apologies in advance.
Rahadoumi: I understand, thank you!
Fighter: More healing for the rest of us!
Alchemist: Would you like me to set aside extra elixirs for you, seeing as how you won't be receiving healing from cleric? The extra attention from cleric the rest of us will receive will more than make up for it, though I would give you extra elixirs anyway because I am a good friend.
Rahadoumi: Yes Alchemist, that would be lovely
See, easy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally the social contract is that you don't get to just reject someone else's character from joining the party. Once the GM approves that character, that is the character that player is playing and you need to have your character accept that character as part of the party. A period of "my character doesn't trust this rando 100%" is fine, but refusing to let that player have their character join the party isn't.
Now, the GM can reject the character and tell the player to make a different one, or ask the player to modify or retire their character if it turns out to be super disruptive to the game, but it isn't up to the regular players to do that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how it works.
Rahadoumi character: Hey, because of my personal beliefs, please don't cast divine magic on me. I won't judge you for using it on other people though, as I am not a meanypants and don't expect you to share my beliefs.
Cleric: Sure, I will try my best to exclude you from my spells, though if it's life or death for other people, you might get a bit on you if I can't get into a position that shapes the effect to avoid you, apologies in advance.
Rahadoumi: I understand, thank you!
Fighter: More healing for the rest of us!
Alchemist: Would you like me to set aside extra elixirs for you, seeing as how you won't be receiving healing from cleric? The extra attention from cleric the rest of us will receive will more than make up for it, though I would give you extra elixirs anyway because I am a good friend.
Rahadoumi: Yes Alchemist, that would be lovelySee, easy.
Cleric: See, here's the issue: If you are possibly going to be the only thing standing between my unarmored flesh and the enemy, I'd rather you be someone who isn't going to fight with a proverbial 'hand tied behind your back'...
Rahadoumi character: Are you disrespecting my beliefs?Cleric: I have the greatest respect for your willingness to die for your beliefs, but I'd prefer it if I didn't die for your beliefs...
Rahadoumi character: I think you are exaggerating a bit...
Cleric: What about my non-healing spells? Am I forbidden from casting Fear on a foe because it might aid you in hitting it and not being hit by it?
Rahadoumi character: I don't think that counts...
Cleric: So you're the 'As a pacifist, I have never hurt anyone: I just have friends that hurt people for me when I ask...' type of hypocrite?
Rahadoumi character: Umm...
Cleric: What if we get asked to help a friendly local church against an encroaching evil cult? Are you just going to refuse to help as your anathema forbids you from getting involved?
Rahadoumi character: ...
Cleric: Is your edict to 'challenge religious power and the spread of religion' going to alienate people whose assistance/cooperation we are going to need?
Rahadoumi character: Your alchemist seems fine with me...
Cleric: You're delusional: We don't have an alchemist in this party. I think we'll have to decline your services and recruit someone else. Thank you for applying...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. The characters are incompatible and would never choose to associate unless forced to.
Likewise the superstitious barbarian subclass.
I get that the cleric has plenty of good other options, and doesn't need to do 3 action heals but it is still a big imposition on another character.
I fail to see why these options don't have the Rare tag on them to explicitly force GM moderation.
I fail to see why these options don't have the Rare tag on them to explicitly force GM moderation.
Because the writer is human and probably just didn't think of every occurance at the time.
Do gods even have rarity scales? Or subclass choices that don't come from a class archetype for that matter ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. But some form of Red Flag to check with your GM is appropriate. Rare and Uncommon are just the ones we have.
Atheists and Clerics sound like a toxic game mix. Superstitious Barbarians and half the other classes in the game.
They can work fine. It just requires consent. Probably group consent
We need a Consent flag.
PF2 is otherwise amazingly flexible in what characters you can pair up together. Example mono class parties of most kinds can work.
Mostly anything with balance/affecting the campaign/compatibility/etc issues gets the uncommon tag.
Basically, mechanical/structural issues buys you into being uncommon - anything further seems to mostly be measuring how rare the thing is in the world itself.
PF2 already does this. Its called running a session 0 and is recommended as standard practise in the GMG.Maybe. But some form of Red Flag to check with your GM is appropriate. Rare and Uncommon are just the ones we have.
Atheists and Clerics sound like a toxic game mix. Superstitious Barbarians and half the other classes in the game.
They can work fine. It just requires consent. Probably group consentWe need a Consent flag.
PF2 is otherwise amazingly flexible in what characters you can pair up together. Example mono class parties of most kinds can work.
That doesn't invalidate the usefulness of such a tag. The point isn't that there aren't other ways of dealing with it. The point would be to signal to the GM that it's something that may have a large impact on their game. Someone like me who's really into the rules system may read some of these options and instantly realize the implications on party dynamics that may arise from it, but not every GM will.
The purpose of the rules system is to make things easier on the GM, and I think such a tag could be useful. Regardless of whether you think the positives of such a tag outweigh the negatives, it definitely does have a use case, and the existence of a session 0 doesn't invalidate that use case.
Neither of these are enough. This is not just general game consent and character building. There are a couple of mechanical character options that will cause problems for the party in the way that the rest of the options won't. Quite frankly these options subvert expectations of the traditional gaming narrative and how the party might normally cooperate.
This is not just general game consent and character building.
I mean, yes it is? We're talking about character options that may or may not have compatibility issues with the rest of the party so you talk it out ahead of time. That's exactly what pre-game communciation is all about.
If it can stop "I rob the party when they sleep because that's what I think my character would do" it can stop anything, so yes it is enough - and also yes it is about "general game consent and character building" because these options don't cause problems outright, they cause problems when you don't get the rest of the group on board with playing them.
Flagging things for "maybe in a particular combination of other elements this could be disruptive" you'd have to put that flag on basically everything in the game because anything can be disruptive if you're not calling the advice on page 8 good enough for guiding how to choose and use options.
Just not so.
There is a significant difference between choosing to play an antisocial character, and choosing a character with disruptive mechanics. A warning label up front is helpful.
Flagging things for "maybe in a particular combination of other elements this could be disruptive" you'd have to put that flag on basically everything in the game because anything can be disruptive if you're not calling the advice on page 8 good enough for guiding how to choose and use options.
Well, good thing that's not what the flag was recommended for, then. It was recommended for things that have a high likelihood of being disruptive, of which there's really not that many.
Also, idk about Gortle, but personally I don't think the advice on page 8 isn't sufficient, but again, that doesn't invalidate the use case of such a tag. I really don't understand the pushback, honestly. If the argument is that adding a tag would add unnecessary clutter, then say that, but instead I'm hearing "just communicate better", which is like... yeah, of course that solves pretty much every problem in ttrpgs, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to think of ways to make things easier for people.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused how reading this:
Edicts challenge religious power and the spread of religion, expose and eradicate hidden worship, provide a peaceful and autonomous society in which the people are cared for through social infrastructure
Anathema worship or swear an oath by a deity or religion, solicit or receive divine or religious aid, take a side in conflicts between religions
It isn't clear enough that picking this option is going to cause character conflict interactions with Divine tradition characters and religion based campaigns.
Because that just screams to me 'will cause problems with Clerics, Fervor Witches, Champions, Demonic Sorcerers, Oracles... and with campaigns involving helping religious organizations'. I don't feel like I need to be all that fluent in the game mechanics and rules to understand that.
And I also agree with thenobledrake in that there are too many things in the game that would be potentially incompatible. Putting a tag on them would just mean that so much has that tag that the tag gets ignored.
Which should be marked with the 'consent' tag: Anti-Tech Activist or Clockfighter? Or both?
And I also agree with thenobledrake in that there are too many things in the game that would be potentially incompatible. Putting a tag on them would just mean that so much has that tag that the tag gets ignored.
Which should be marked with the 'consent' tag: Anti-Tech Activist or Clockfighter? Or both?
AntiTech Activist is a roleplaying option aimed squarely against whole classes Gunfighters, Inventors and perhaps Alchemists. You really should check that no one else in the party is playing one of those classes and if they are, that they are happy to have the tension in the game. But that can be covered by normal roleplaying conventions. There are no mechanics forcing the incompatibility. This is just the same sort of tension you would get by mixing evil and good characters in a game. Its probably a bad idea, but some groups like the challenge.
Discernment is useful, understand probabilities.
Just because there is a possiblity something might clash with a particular option, it is not the same as the mechanics of the game requiring that clash.