Summoning a creature should definitely not count as doing damage with the elements. That's creating a physical thing (which Pride and Wrath are forbidden from). What the thing does after is not your problem. It's just like how a Wrath Runelord can freeze an enemy trying to kill a friend. Your aims may have been to protect, but the magic was destructive, and that's what counts.
Remember Envy cares about doing harm not specifically damage.
So theres a second point of ambiguity since harm is not something everyone agrees on.
Summoning a creature should definitely not count as doing damage with the elements. That's creating a physical thing (which Pride and Wrath are forbidden from). What the thing does after is not your problem. It's just like how a Wrath Runelord can freeze an enemy trying to kill a friend. Your aims may have been to protect, but the magic was destructive, and that's what counts.Remember Envy cares about doing harm not specifically damage.
So theres a second point of ambiguity since harm is not something everyone agrees on.
Remember to look back at the old prohibited schools. Summoning is Conjuration. Envy/Abjuration banned evocation and necromancy. Summoning is fine.
Remember to look back at the old prohibited schools. Summoning is Conjuration. Envy/Abjuration banned evocation and necromancy. Summoning is fine.Summoning a creature should definitely not count as doing damage with the elements. That's creating a physical thing (which Pride and Wrath are forbidden from). What the thing does after is not your problem. It's just like how a Wrath Runelord can freeze an enemy trying to kill a friend. Your aims may have been to protect, but the magic was destructive, and that's what counts.Remember Envy cares about doing harm not specifically damage.
So theres a second point of ambiguity since harm is not something everyone agrees on.
Dont you think summoning specifically something like an elemental creature is both causing harm because harm is the purpose of summoning it and an attempt at cheesing the elemental restriction?
|
Those old idea of spell schools ar eno longe ra thing. I understand that using it as a handy guideline, and if that's how you'd rule at your table, that's your perspective. But this is one of those situations I would warn my player of being at the edges of their Anathema. I think I would argue summoning an ELEMENTAL to attack would violate the Anathema, but if they summoned something else, that just happened to be able to do damage that is elemental in nature, that wouldn't.)
Dont you think summoning specifically something like an elemental creature is both causing harm because harm is the purpose of summoning it and an attempt at cheesing the elemental restriction?It's possible a GM could do that. I wouldn't.
IMO a good anathema is a role-play challenge and opportunity that avoids either extreme of 'trivial' or 'crippling.' Combing through every spell for any possibility of damage from some elemental concept is IMO getting into the 'crippling' extreme. Plus we know from the original Runelords that the focus was evocation magic. Blasting with elements. I think that's really where both the PC and GM should make the restriction pinch (but not completely ruin the fun!)
As for the player, they should ideally consider it as a "Challenge. Accepted." moment and dive into the persona and tactics of a wizard who voluntarily avoids using that sort of magic. If the player is seeing it as a "how can I work around this so I can argue for the same spell list I always use, and thus render the anathema irrelevant" moment, then the GM and player are likely in for a lot of friction moments no matter what rules the GM sets for what is included in the anathema.
Honestly, I don't enforce anathema as a GM. The most i will do is remind them of their anathema.
|
|
I would, but only after the player and I agreed to it. If they want to modify it when they first take it on (session 0 or if they take an archetype) that's something I'd be happy to discuss. But I think that's definitely part of the game for the GM to call and state that they have broken Anathema.
No for the violation of Anathema to count it has to be willing. So nothing they do while controlled or something like that can violate Anathema.
I would, but only after the player and I agreed to it. If they want to modify it when they first take it on (session 0 or if they take an archetype) that's something I'd be happy to discuss. But I think that's definitely part of the game for the GM to call and state that they have broken Anathema.
No for the violation of Anathema to count it has to be willing. So nothing they do while controlled or something like that can violate Anathema.
Maybe its more for my part i havn't really had to.
My players have picked their classes kind of based on what they wanted to roleplay so they not only don't want to break their anathema, it gives them some stances to have their character take in some situations without thinking to much on it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"My anathema says I can't harm people with elemental magic... so I summon a fire elemental to attack" definitely feels like something I can see someone getting side eyes over, and I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a GM calling that a no go.
Remember to look back at the old prohibited schools.
Looking back at depreciated rules that don't count anymore only seems like a way to cause confusion. I think "don't" is better advice than "remember to" because the rules are different now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's exactly what they've said to do.Looking back at depreciated rules that don't count anymore only seems like a way to cause confusion. I think "don't" is better advice than "remember to" because the rules are different now.
Remember to look back at the old prohibited schools.
As a general rule, the OP team does not provide guidance on edicts or anathema, as they are inherently subjective. Runelord anathema should evaluated in the context of their former spell schools and common sense for the game. A temporary fireball is not considered creating something and attacking an enemy would not violate an anathema against protecting others or changing a physical thing.
Except that's exactly what they've said to do.Looking back at depreciated rules that don't count anymore only seems like a way to cause confusion. I think "don't" is better advice than "remember to" because the rules are different now.
Remember to look back at the old prohibited schools.As a general rule, the OP team does not provide guidance on edicts or anathema, as they are inherently subjective. Runelord anathema should evaluated in the context of their former spell schools and common sense for the game. A temporary fireball is not considered creating something and attacking an enemy would not violate an anathema against protecting others or changing a physical thing.
Does that general rule to you allow envy to summon a fire elemental to fight and not be against the anathema for envy?
The spell is elemental magic that will cause harm. So it crosses the common sense line for me based on the text written in the anathema.Im not sure ridged adherence to the old spell schools squares with common sense for the game as it is now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To reiterate my argument, just as killing someone with magic to protect others is not protective and hurling fire out of thin air doesn't count as creating something, summoning a creature is not harming someone. Your personal rune doesn't care what the creature goes on to do. The Runelord's anathemas are entirely concerned with what you do, not why you do it.
A summon will cause indirect harm.
|
|
Maybe its more for my part i havn't really had to.
My players have picked their classes kind of based on what they wanted to roleplay so they not only don't want to break their anathema, it gives them some stances to have their character take in some situations without thinking to much on it.
And that's probably going to be most people's experience. But breaking an Anathema can be a role playing choice as well, in which case, they will likely call themselves on it like, I think, you said. but on the outside chance that it's some power gaming, or thoughtlessness. a reminder/warning before enforcing I think is fair.
And as far as the summon goes, I maintain. if you summon an actual elemental, yeah that breaks anathema (and I'd warn the player that it could break their anathema). but if they summoned some other creature that happens to do damage of an elemental type (like a dragon with a fire breath weapon) that's allowable, though they might still get the warning to keep them on their toes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A summon will cause indirect harm.
If you are reaching to this level of abstraction, the class will begin to have basic functionality issues.
Any aid whatsoever they lend to the party would then count as indirect harm.
That's nonsense.
Just look at it from the perspective that is already established in game:
If an action counts as a hostile action (e.g. to break Invisibility), then it should be considered active involvement. And if it causes injury, then it is doing harm.
Sure, you can summon a Fire Elemental, but once you command (sustain) it to attack someone, then that is definitely using your magic to cause harm with an element.
For at what point would that be different than casting Floating Flame? Both are temporarily summoned forms of elemental fire that require your direct command to harm others.
A summon will cause indirect harm.
If you are reaching to this level of abstraction, the class will begin to have basic functionality issues.
Any aid whatsoever they lend to the party would then count as indirect harm.
You dont have to take indirect harm to any extremes to see how it relates to summoning a fire elemental. The example in the rules was opening a door with a dangerous monster to show indirect harm. A summon is very much like that.
Its actually really easy and sensible. Just dont cast offensive elemental spells. Maybe they should have said that instead.
|
A summon will cause indirect harm.
If you are reaching to this level of abstraction, the class will begin to have basic functionality issues.
Any aid whatsoever they lend to the party would then count as indirect harm.
That's nonsense.
Just look at it from the perspective that is already established in game:
If an action counts as a hostile action (e.g. to break Invisibility), then it should be considered active involvement. And if it causes injury, then it is doing harm.Sure, you can summon a Fire Elemental, but once you command (sustain) it to attack someone, then that is definitely using your magic to cause harm with an element.
For at what point would that be different than casting Floating Flame? Both are temporarily summoned forms of elemental fire that require your direct command to harm others.
This feels like we are in arbitrary and capricious territory.
Would casting Conductive Weapons on an allies weapon be Anathema to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A summon will cause indirect harm.
If you are reaching to this level of abstraction, the class will begin to have basic functionality issues.
Any aid whatsoever they lend to the party would then count as indirect harm.
That's nonsense.
Just look at it from the perspective that is already established in game:
If an action counts as a hostile action (e.g. to break Invisibility), then it should be considered active involvement. And if it causes injury, then it is doing harm.Sure, you can summon a Fire Elemental, but once you command (sustain) it to attack someone, then that is definitely using your magic to cause harm with an element.
For at what point would that be different than casting Floating Flame? Both are temporarily summoned forms of elemental fire that require your direct command to harm others.
This feels like we are in arbitrary and capricious territory.
Would casting Conductive Weapons on an allies weapon be Anathema to you?
I know I took the hostile argument to its extreme in the other thread about harm but for this anathema no I wouldn't consider conductive weapons cast on allies the same as casting an elemental. I think Zoken44 is taking a good middle approach. Tell the player this is on the edge, your playing at the fringes of your anathema.
But for summoning it feels more like its just past that edge. its mainly because casting an elemental minion that is going to use elemental damage abilities on enemies feels like cheesing the system to still be able to use elemental attacks as an envy Runelord. There is a spirit of this is a thing my character is giving up that isn't being given up.
Ok lets use earth as the example cause its clear as mud. pun intended.
Also these spells hit different parts that could be cleared up.
How about Spiked stones? this was a conjuration spell in legacy.
So perfectly fine to cast it as envy even though its clearly an earth spell and clearly does harm?
Shifting Sand was transmutation and applies penalties to foes in it. harm?
Grasping Earth creates hands to do grappling and damage for you so is this ok to cast as envy? I mean whats the difference between sustaining this or sustaining an earth scamp?
What about focus spells that are elemental? They wont be refferenceable on old spell lists to see if they were evocation or something else
I just want to establish the old spell lists as either a hard rule like some are suggesting or actually not a rule but a get the feel for thing. Im thinking not really a rule cause although there can be some take aways using it rigidly doesn't always make sense.
|
|
Searching AoN for 'elemental trait' monsters...limiting to Monster Core...oh look, the Earth Scamp does bludgeoning only. So does the Living Whirlwind. Moving up, the Jabail does B or S.There are certainly elementals that do primarily six-element damage. Or the 'expanded' types like cold and electricity. There are also some that do primarily B/P/S with a bit of add-on elemental damage which could be used to trigger weaknesses or get around resistances. But IMO eliminating elemental summonings altogether is waaaaay overbroad, because many of them are residents of an elemental plane that use regular old attacks.
I still disagree, not because it gives you more damage types, you've just shown they might be doing physical damage types, and there are non-elemental summons who can do elemental damage, but because you are actively summoning and controlling elemental energy/beings with the intention to cause harm, which is the anathema.
Now to me, this (in universe) is not about offending someone, or getting around the technical wording, but about how your magic is interacting. This is a computer technician doesn't wearing that wrist strap with clip because they were told to, they do it because bad things happen if they don't.
|
Searching AoN for 'elemental trait' monsters...limiting to Monster Core...oh look, the Earth Scamp does bludgeoning only. So does the Living Whirlwind. Moving up, the Jabail does B or S.There are certainly elementals that do primarily six-element damage. Or the 'expanded' types like cold and electricity. There are also some that do primarily B/P/S with a bit of add-on elemental damage which could be used to trigger weaknesses or get around resistances. But IMO eliminating elemental summonings altogether is waaaaay overbroad, because many of them are residents of an elemental plane that use regular old attacks.
I still disagree, not because it gives you more damage types, you've just shown they might be doing physical damage types, and there are non-elemental summons who can do elemental damage, but because you are actively summoning and controlling elemental energy/beings with the intention to cause harm, which is the anathema.
Now to me, this (in universe) is not about offending someone, or getting around the technical wording, but about how your magic is interacting. This is a computer technician doesn't wearing that wrist strap with clip because they were told to, they do it because bad things happen if they don't.
I'd say it's more like trying to run an Xbox game on a Playstation 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A summon will cause indirect harm.
If you are reaching to this level of abstraction, the class will begin to have basic functionality issues.
Any aid whatsoever they lend to the party would then count as indirect harm.
I disagree that summoning a rampaging fire elemental to kill your enemies is particularly far down the abstraction table here. I'd probably be fine with it, but it's not really that much of a logical jump for a class that's not supposed to use elemental power to harm people.
... It's also a pretty big leap to say that being discouraged from summoning elementals somehow loses basic functionality.
I read back through the runelord entry in the book again.
I think its pretty clearly anathema for envy to summon elementals.
It was like a lightbulb after reading sloth again and looking at its spell list.
Sloth singles out direct harm with elemental magic leaving indirect as an option and includes summon elemental on their sin spell list. They are fully at home summoning an elemental to do the harm for them. Envy however is not, it restricts using elemental magic to harm period.
But its not because of the abilities of the elemental (im correcting my previous post there) its because elemental summons are elemental magic that causes indirect harm.