Errenor wrote: You are talking about the impulse which uses the spell's text. Well, yes. Considering the title of the thread, that seemed appropriate. I guess however that one could argue that protector tree is not a 'thing to look out for when bringing a kineticist to the table' regardless of whether 'ally' includes the caster or not.
Trip.H wrote: The Raven Black wrote:
It is good that we have explicit RAW about the targets of effects : "Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You are not your own ally."
That was never being questioned, and it really feels like you are jumping to attack points that don't exist w/o taking enough time to read and get that.
------------------------------------
The contention is over a missing/implied [its] vs [your].
In my view, the tree is the subject actor. The tree is not it's own ally, which is why it does not (uselessly) interpose its branches to protect itself. The caster would be the tree's ally.
IMO, that "tree reaching out to protect itself" is exactly why "ally" was used, as it avoids the clumsy circumstance of the tree protecting itself w/o benefit.
The spell/tree is an effect. So I quoted the RAW about effects and ally.
Ally is a specific game term.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If protector tree can't protect the caster, wood kineticist is still doing it's job by drawing attacks to them. They've got a ton of sustainability with their impulse junction. Grab deflecting wave and you've got double your level in reduced damage per turn. (Except for piercing strikes)
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
regarding the whole creating things for money, the Lost Omen's travel guide has a section on trade and it addresses magically created goods and trade. Specifically you can use magic goods yourself without issue but trying to sell it gets the church of abadar to hunt you down.
The Raven Black wrote: The caster is not their own ally. The tree has no allies. That is just an incredibly terrible reading of it. It makes a reasonable spell almost useless. Don't go there. TBTBT.
The Raven Black wrote: Ally is a specific game term. It is also natural language.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Protector Tree not having the 'you or an ally' language in it feels like an oversight by the author who wrote that spell.
But technically that is what RAW says about it - that the character that created Protector Tree is not eligible for protection by the tree.
It feels strange, but that is what the rules say about it. I expect that it will get houseruled a lot.
I don't think it is too bad to be true to rule it either way. There are other effects that can only be used to protect allies and not the user of that effect. Paladin/Liberator/Redeemer reactions being ones that come to mind immediately.
The spell does not designate any Target.
IMO:
* If it really was intended to not defend the caster, the spell would have a Targets: Allies bit in its blurb. This would be a rather solid case that the tree is just a magical effect performing a function, not a real independent entity.
* Because it IS missing any target, that indicates the spell's whole deal is creating an independent, active agent. And the description of its behavior is done w/ the tree as the actor, saying that the tree protects [its] allies.
Trip.H wrote:
shroudb wrote: Wall of stone has HP and AC. Does that make it also have allies and enemies? That leaves out the key part, that of being an active agent w/ recognition and decision making.
the tree makes as many decisions as the wall.
it can't choose who to protect or not. it can't choose not to take a hit.
it has as many allies as wall of stone, 0.
The caster on the other hand, DOES have allies.
Trip.H wrote: The spell does not designate any Target.
IMO:
* If it really was intended to not defend the caster, the spell would have a Targets: Allies bit in its blurb. This would be a rather solid case that the tree is just a magical effect performing a function, not a real independent entity.
* Because it IS missing any target, that indicates the spell's whole deal is creating an independent, active agent. And the description of its behavior is done w/ the tree as the actor, saying that the tree protects [its] allies.
It doesn't work like that at all.
If it had "Target: Allies" then you would need to grow the tree on top of an ally.
Instead you choose a spot on the battlefield and the EFFECTS of the spell affect allies.
Nowhere, and i mean literally nowhere, does the tree is even hinted at being "an independent agent".
It has no will. It can't make decisions for itself.
Or do you mean you are ok with the GM saying "the tree doesn't take the hit because it doesn't want to die" whenever one of YOUR allies is getting hit?
Are you also OK with the GM saying that the tree is taking the hit when your party's fighter tries to kill that direwolf because "The tree decided that the animal is more an ally for it rather than a human" ?
Because that's what "independent agent" actually means.
Ultimately, even IF it was an independent agent, who decides who are its allies and who are the enemies? As an independent agent, with exactly 0 references to its disposition towards you, it has equal chances to be allies with your enemies are it is with your side.
Independent agent as in, not a summoned entity, not dependent upon the caster to exist or act in any way. No need to Sustain the Spell, ect. The Druid could get disintegrated and the tree would be fine and alert/active for the remainder of its duration.
I find it very odd that you can read that spell description and honestly claim
Quote: Nowhere, and i mean literally nowhere, does the tree is even hinted at being "an independent agent" The spell even goes out of its way to say:
Quote: If the tree is in soil and survives to the end of the spell's duration, it remains as an ordinary, non-magical tree, and continues to grow and thrive. The GM might determine that the tree disappears immediately in certain inhospitable situations. The tree is described as a living being that can be potentially killed, not destroyed. IMO that's a pretty damn strong "hint."
On the matter of Protector Tree, I'm going to do as has been done in many similar cases in the past. For me, it gets a "subject to debate" sign on it. It's had enough people on both sides in strong disagreement. It keeps being debated, even now. It's subject to debate.
shroudb wrote: the tree makes as many decisions as the wall.
it can't choose who to protect or not. it can't choose not to take a hit.
Something about the magic *does* choose. Tree, spell, call it whatever, but if your martial party member is fighting an orc near it, when the orc strikes at the martial a branch comes down and gets between the strike and the martial. While when the martial strikes at the orc, the branch does not come down, does not get between the strike and it's target.
This is very different from a wall; while walls don't "do" anything, the GM treats the orc and the martial exactly the same no matter what either does to the wall, or no matter what they try in terms of avoiding the wall, etc. If the wall-caster puts it in a 'bad position' for the martial, well tough luck to the martial, the fact that her ally summoned it doesn't mean that the wall is somehow 'open' for them because they are the caster's ally. The wall does not treat the martial any differently than the orc, but the Protector Tree *does* treat the martial differently than the orc.
In fact, if the orc and martial suddenly "switched sides" with the orc trying to defend the caster and the martial trying to kill them, the tree would then switch it's role. The branch would come down to foil the martial's strike, but it would let the orc's strike at the martial through. So clearly there is something dynamic going on with the Protector Tree that is not going on with the wall.
Quote: It has no will. It can't make decisions for itself. Something is telling the difference between the enemy orc and your buddy the martial. And it's not the caster, because if the caster gets conked out the tree will still be there, protecting the caster's allies and interfering with the strikes of the caster's enemies.
So what is telling the difference between the orc and the martial?
I don't really have a dog in the "does it protect the caster" fight, but if your argument for "it does" relies on analogy to summoning wall spells, then I think your argument is bad and your conclusion does not hold.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The vehemence with which people are insisting theirs is the only possible way to read Protector Tree is rather irritating. The amount of disagreement ipso facto demonstrates that no, yours is not the one true reading, let it go.
Any players who want to take it should probably clarify with their GM, but it's a strong defensive option regardless against any enemy that relies on strikes for damage (with some GMs you just need to keep allies between you and the enemy, but kineticists have little issue fighting from 10-20' away anyways). Even if an enemy decides to attack the tree first to kill it faster, that means they're burning their best attack each round hitting it, and spending two actions a round to negate the best attack the boss has each turn is a net win for the party.
One thing that I've noticed though - the spell doesn't indicate the saving throws of the tree, so I'm not actually sure how to handle it being caught in a breath attack (besides the obvious that it fails to protect any allies).
I've just seen it ruled to auto-fail any relevant saves, that's quick and seems appropriate.
|
