| shaventalz |
I have a question regarding the Psychokineticist Kineticist archetype.
His Emotional Intensity class power states that "if he ever gains immunity to charm, compulsion, emotion effects (even if such immunity extends only to a subcategory of these effects like fear effects or compulsion effects from creatures of certain alignments), he loses all his kineticist abilities"
How does this interact with Remove Fear? The spell "suppresses" fear effects - does that count as immunity, or is it something else?
| Pizza Lord |
Yes, it blocks access for as long as the emotion is suppressed. He must be able to access all his emotions to fully utilize his potential. The same would be true of calm emotions. It doesn't make you 'immune' to emotions, but it suppresses them and their effects.
Fortunately, the character can always choose to ignore such suppression, which is good if they're benefitting from rage or good hope. In the case of fear, as long as they aren't panicked and running away out of control, at least they still have all their benefits.
He can always choose to ignore such immunities when he would normally gain them, even if they are granted by another class feature (such as the paladin’s aura of courage), but once he decides whether or not to ignore an immunity he would have gained, the choice cannot be changed.
If he has remove fear cast on him, there's no issue. For 10 minutes, he saves with a +4 bonus against any fear effects. Pass or fail, he's not immune or having them suppressed. If he were to become feared, say frightened, and then an ally cast remove fear to suppress it, he could automatically choose to not have the immunity or suppression and continue to be Frightened (–2 penalties and run away) and keep access to emotional intensity, or have it it suppressed and not have to run away or have the penalties, but would lose emotional intensity and all the things it says happen for 10 minutes (pretty much all kineticist abilities, including things already activated).
| I grok do u |
I would disagree with Pizza Lord on this one. At least how I'm reading the response. Suppression is not immunity, and remove fear only suppresses an existing fear effect - you are still susceptible to another, i.e. not immune. You don't lose your abilities for suppression, only immunity as per the game term.
Although some suppression will run a foul of the other rule:
Emotional Intensity also states that a psychokineticist "can’t use any of his wild talents whenever he would be unable to use a spell with an emotion component."
Emotion Components: Emotion components represent a particular emotional state required to cast the spell. A psychic spellcaster marshals her desire in order to focus and release the spell’s energy. It is impossible to cast a spell with an emotion component while the spellcaster is under the influence of a non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear descriptors. (The emotion descriptor was originally introduced in Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic.) Even if the effect’s emotion matches the necessary emotion to cast the psychic spell, the spellcaster is not in control of her own desires and animal impulses, which is a necessary part of providing an emotion component.
So, Good hope is okay because the emotion component rule only calls out non-harmless effects, but rage and calm emotions are both going to nullify your wild talents.
IMO Ruling shaken characters can't use the bulk of their abilities (wild talents, including kinetic blasts), and then also saying they lose all the rest of their class abilities when the cleric casts remove fear to bring them back into the fight, seems unreasonable.
| Pizza Lord |
I would disagree with Pizza Lord on this one. At least how I'm reading the response. Suppression is not immunity, and remove fear only suppresses an existing fear effect - you are still susceptible to another, i.e. not immune. You don't lose your abilities for suppression, only immunity as per the game term.
...
IMO Ruling shaken characters can't use the bulk of their abilities (wild talents, including kinetic blasts), and then also saying they lose all the rest of their class abilities when the cleric casts remove fear to bring them back into the fight, seems unreasonable.
I can certainly agree with remove fear suppressing a specific fear effect is not immunity for purposes of emotional intensity, only because it doesn't provide immunity to a whole class or against a creature type or alignment. And in the cases of frightful presence, immunity to that particular creature may not count as immunity to all dragon fear I could allow that. As you said, if the kineticist were affected by it, then it was suppressed by remove fear, they'd need a whole new save the next round anyway (at +4). By that ruling, if an ability granted the character immunity to all [creature]s' fear abilities, such as dragon fear, then it would count.
I would point out that most suppression effects are considered by the game to be functional immunity. Delay poison suppresses poisons and their effects for the duration. Depending on the wording the writer used, it can be considered either way. That spell says 'temporary immunity', but it's clearly a suppression.
But I guess remove fear (the specific subject of the topic) may not fall into the specific 'sub-category' of immunity.
As for whether it seems harsh or unreasonable, that's not the issue really. I mean, lots of players feel being frightened or panicked or being charmed is 'unreasonable' because they lose player agency. There might be times where the kineticist player would be grateful they can't unleash their powers if an emotional effect would cause them to lash out at allies. It's just part of the design (whether intended or not). If that means allies must use other methods to purge fear, such as joyful rapture, that's no different than having a paladin PC in the party, "Oh no, my character can't just openly talk about doing evil things, that's unreasonable..." or a character with SR having to spend an action lowering to receive certain spells. It just means the psychokineticist character needs to be very aware of the effects of emotional spells, and should raise their saves or resistances.
| I grok do u |
I would point out that most suppression effects are considered by the game to be functional immunity. Delay poison suppresses poisons and their effects for the duration. Depending on the wording the writer used, it can be considered either way. That spell says 'temporary immunity', but it's clearly a suppression.
I would say it's somewhat analogous to damage versus penalties to ability scores. Penalties may be functionally the same as damage, but the interactions with rule sets vary. But you make a very good point, and a case by case consideration is probably necessary for the "wording" reason.
But I guess remove fear (the specific subject of the topic) may not fall into the specific 'sub-category' of immunity.
It can certainly just be safer to stick to the specific question than to try to generalize it to cover all potentialities!
As for whether it seems harsh or unreasonable, that's not the issue really. I mean, lots of players feel being frightened or panicked or being charmed is 'unreasonable' because they lose player agency. There might be times where the kineticist player would be grateful they can't unleash their powers...
Oh, I agree with that; I was just going a little off-RAW topic and adding an opinion regarding the dynamics of a social game.