Apostle of Peace and Pacifying Touch [Archive] - Wizards Community

Apostle of Peace and Pacifying Touch [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kessalin Talira
01-30-05, 01:01 PM Has anyone ever played or DMed for an Apostle of Peace character, and gotten the impression that Pacifying Touch is bordering on too powerful?

We have a campaign going here with one in it and the DM, as well as I, have been noticing that too many encounters come down to "How fast can we get the apostle of peace to touch the monsters". It starts to take some of the fun away from combat, IMO.

What's been done for now is to limit the Pacifying Touch ability to once per day at first level AoP, and one more time per day every three levels thereafter, for a total of four times a day at 10th.

What does everyone think of this, either the ability or the limitations that have been placed on it now?
BelRex
01-30-05, 01:18 PM Isn't it just a mind affecting power? If so there are spells to help prevent that from happening. Also, an Apostle of Peace isn't going to rush around in battle and start touching folks. If every battle began that way, I would, as a DM, tone it down. Otherwise, the Apostle would almost never get involved in a battle. It's a touch attack, so doesn't it provoke attacks of opportunity to use it?
Kessalin Talira
01-30-05, 04:27 PM Yes, it's mind affecting, but the things we're fighting haven't had access to magic to protect against mind affecting effects. Even if they did, it'd have to be something to take into account all the time, and if EVERYTHING was immune it would seem a little contrived, which would be pretty frustrating.

Regarding the Apostle running around in battle touching people, that sounds, to me, like the first thing they should do. They hate violence in all its forms, and if they can stop a battle before it starts, great. That's why the DM is trying to figure out a way to tone it down.

Lastly, yes it's a touch attack but making touch attacks to deliver spells, and I would assume spell effects, does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You're considered armed when making a touch attack like that, because the defender has to worry about what's coming with the touch as much as they would have to worry about a weapon. It's described on page 141 of the PHB, first column.

It's also a supernatural ability, the use of which doesn't provoke an AoO, but that's not as relevant.
Dartanel
01-30-05, 07:47 PM a) Only works on one creature a round, max, and attacking all the pacified creature's friends should break the effect.
b) Doesn't help you if the enemy's goal is not 'kill the party' Calm emotions on the door guard means he's going to calmly block the door.
c) The apostle's use of pacifying touch is limited by his reach, which considering his inability to use mounts or magic items is low.
d) It's pretty much and all or nothing deal, if the apostle pacifies one creature, he has to pacify all of them. If the pcs kill the other creatures while some of them are pacified, then the apostle has just aided in their deaths (by preventing their allies from protecting them)
Levism84
02-01-05, 10:40 PM Abuse of the peace touch can be frustrating, not because it ends encounters quickly, but because it always unfolds the same way. If anything, the peace touch should be treated as an "Ace in the Hole" for when words fail to move, or when a situation can be haulted before it gets out of control.

When comfronting a group of individuals bent on stopping or bringing harm to the party, the AoP should defend themselves and their fellow party members in a respectful, non-violent manner (altought subduel damage can be used). Remember, Vash the stampede is all for LOVE & PEACE! (LOVE & PEACE, LOVE & PEACE, LOVE & PEACE...) So, sometimes, you've got to beat peace and love into people instead of calming them for a little bit.

In the long run, it drives people towards peace in the long term instead of fixing it in the short term and simply moving on.

That is just my two cents; ask the guy if using the peace touch is really solving anyone's problems?

L&P

~Rain~
Mystic Theurge
02-17-05, 01:56 AM d) It's pretty much and all or nothing deal, if the apostle pacifies one creature, he has to pacify all of them. If the pcs kill the other creatures while some of them are pacified, then the apostle has just aided in their deaths (by preventing their allies from protecting them)
This is a bit of a stretch and a bit legalistic, if you ask me. If the AoP doesn't heal every creature that gets hit and comes into a state of "dying", does that mean the AOP contributed to its death? Hardly. If you are going to play "by the book", the AoP is only obligated to protect and prevent the harming of those the AoP pacifies, nothing more. Going beyond that is punishing the AoP unduly simply because the DM finds a loop-hole in the rules that would allow him to do so. (I had one DM rule that Stigmata was a violation of VoPeace because it caused harm to a living creature: the character herself. That is just one example of looking for ways to punish an exalted character for daring to try to be exalted.)

Now, as far as the AoP is concerned, it isn't necessary to stop every combat situation. The AoP should be wise enough to realize that this simply cannot be done. The AoP brings peace to the world through ideas and ideals, not through such mundane things as touching another, which on a basic level is still a violent act (resulting in a nonviolent outcome).

Another thing to consider is that, aside from the fact that the AoP version of Calm Emotions resulting from the pacifying touch calms only negative emotions, it still follows the rules of the spell. A pacified creature is not forever pacified, and should only be calmed for a few rounds, requiring either continuous contact, or renewed touches on occassion. This should result in only one or two people being realisticly pacified. There is nothing needed to be toned down here.
aaron3579
02-19-05, 04:49 PM The first thing that I thought when reading about the AoP was:

WTF???

Then I put the book back on the store-shelf shelf and picked up UA instead.

Seriously, BoED is crap if you think about how it blew BoVD out of the water. You may call me a hypocrite for using one but not the other, but come on...

I won't tell you that you are wrong to allow a PC to play such a class, but I will say this: I would never allow it in my campaign. Consequently, if you feel the need to nerf him, by all means, be my guest. If it were me, in your position, I would just say "Sorry, that class is too ridiculous. Thanks for the NPC, pick something else.
Mystic Theurge
02-19-05, 05:47 PM Then I put the book back on the store-shelf shelf and picked up UA instead.

And then...

Seriously, BoED is crap if you think about how it blew BoVD out of the water.

Figured that out by just looking at the AoP, hmm? Considering the apperant "fact" that people just aren't playing the class correctly in the first place, I would be inclined to agree with disallowing the class. But my perspective comes from a question of why a player would want to play such a class in the first place. If it comes down to it being a "power" build, I would disallow it (same goes for the VoP) because I would think that the player just doesn't understand the class. There shouldn't be anything overpowering about the AoP, and it shouldn't be played as a person going around stopping every combat just by touching opponents. (As I mentioned before, such an act is a FORCEFUL thing and, IMO, flies against what a true AoP stands for. Unless it is used as a last resort, it's boils down to taking away someone else's free will and conforming to your own, which should never be done lightly, and I am sure some would even agree that it is not an "exalted" act.) Honestly, there is really very little to even recommend the class. Speaking form experience, playing a pacifist character can be really quite boring unless the DM specificly tailors encounters for such a character, in which the character is often overshadowed by more bloodthirsty companions. In my campaign, if someone truly wants to play an AoP and demonstrates the maturity needed to play one (which should be evident by the time the character is eligible), I have no problem allowing the class. Of course, it also depends on the maturity of the entire group, which is often at odds with the motives of one player.

I will say trhat because of the lack of maturity of many DMs and players alike, my BoED has seen very little use. I feel that when it is handled correctly and within the spirit of the rules, it is a very useful tool. That being said, there is nothing wrong with leaving it on the shelf. Based on your comments, I would even recommend it. However, just having perused the book once or twice hardly makes one an authority on it, does it?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kessalin Talira 01-30-05, 01:01 PM	Has anyone ever played or DMed for an Apostle of Peace character, and gotten the impression that Pacifying Touch is bordering on too powerful? We have a campaign going here with one in it and the DM, as well as I, have been noticing that too many encounters come down to "How fast can we get the apostle of peace to touch the monsters". It starts to take some of the fun away from combat, IMO. What's been done for now is to limit the Pacifying Touch ability to once per day at first level AoP, and one more time per day every three levels thereafter, for a total of four times a day at 10th. What does everyone think of this, either the ability or the limitations that have been placed on it now?
BelRex 01-30-05, 01:18 PM	Isn't it just a mind affecting power? If so there are spells to help prevent that from happening. Also, an Apostle of Peace isn't going to rush around in battle and start touching folks. If every battle began that way, I would, as a DM, tone it down. Otherwise, the Apostle would almost never get involved in a battle. It's a touch attack, so doesn't it provoke attacks of opportunity to use it?
Kessalin Talira 01-30-05, 04:27 PM	Yes, it's mind affecting, but the things we're fighting haven't had access to magic to protect against mind affecting effects. Even if they did, it'd have to be something to take into account all the time, and if EVERYTHING was immune it would seem a little contrived, which would be pretty frustrating. Regarding the Apostle running around in battle touching people, that sounds, to me, like the first thing they should do. They hate violence in all its forms, and if they can stop a battle before it starts, great. That's why the DM is trying to figure out a way to tone it down. Lastly, yes it's a touch attack but making touch attacks to deliver spells, and I would assume spell effects, does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You're considered armed when making a touch attack like that, because the defender has to worry about what's coming with the touch as much as they would have to worry about a weapon. It's described on page 141 of the PHB, first column. It's also a supernatural ability, the use of which doesn't provoke an AoO, but that's not as relevant.
Dartanel 01-30-05, 07:47 PM	a) Only works on one creature a round, max, and attacking all the pacified creature's friends should break the effect. b) Doesn't help you if the enemy's goal is not 'kill the party' Calm emotions on the door guard means he's going to calmly block the door. c) The apostle's use of pacifying touch is limited by his reach, which considering his inability to use mounts or magic items is low. d) It's pretty much and all or nothing deal, if the apostle pacifies one creature, he has to pacify all of them. If the pcs kill the other creatures while some of them are pacified, then the apostle has just aided in their deaths (by preventing their allies from protecting them)
Levism84 02-01-05, 10:40 PM	Abuse of the peace touch can be frustrating, not because it ends encounters quickly, but because it always unfolds the same way. If anything, the peace touch should be treated as an "Ace in the Hole" for when words fail to move, or when a situation can be haulted before it gets out of control. When comfronting a group of individuals bent on stopping or bringing harm to the party, the AoP should defend themselves and their fellow party members in a respectful, non-violent manner (altought subduel damage can be used). Remember, Vash the stampede is all for LOVE & PEACE! (LOVE & PEACE, LOVE & PEACE, LOVE & PEACE...) So, sometimes, you've got to beat peace and love into people instead of calming them for a little bit. In the long run, it drives people towards peace in the long term instead of fixing it in the short term and simply moving on. That is just my two cents; ask the guy if using the peace touch is really solving anyone's problems? L&P ~Rain~
Mystic Theurge 02-17-05, 01:56 AM	d) It's pretty much and all or nothing deal, if the apostle pacifies one creature, he has to pacify all of them. If the pcs kill the other creatures while some of them are pacified, then the apostle has just aided in their deaths (by preventing their allies from protecting them) This is a bit of a stretch and a bit legalistic, if you ask me. If the AoP doesn't heal every creature that gets hit and comes into a state of "dying", does that mean the AOP contributed to its death? Hardly. If you are going to play "by the book", the AoP is only obligated to protect and prevent the harming of those the AoP pacifies, nothing more. Going beyond that is punishing the AoP unduly simply because the DM finds a loop-hole in the rules that would allow him to do so. (I had one DM rule that Stigmata was a violation of VoPeace because it caused harm to a living creature: the character herself. That is just one example of looking for ways to punish an exalted character for daring to try to be exalted.) Now, as far as the AoP is concerned, it isn't necessary to stop every combat situation. The AoP should be wise enough to realize that this simply cannot be done. The AoP brings peace to the world through ideas and ideals, not through such mundane things as touching another, which on a basic level is still a violent act (resulting in a nonviolent outcome). Another thing to consider is that, aside from the fact that the AoP version of Calm Emotions resulting from the pacifying touch calms only negative emotions, it still follows the rules of the spell. A pacified creature is not forever pacified, and should only be calmed for a few rounds, requiring either continuous contact, or renewed touches on occassion. This should result in only one or two people being realisticly pacified. There is nothing needed to be toned down here.
aaron3579 02-19-05, 04:49 PM	The first thing that I thought when reading about the AoP was: WTF??? Then I put the book back on the store-shelf shelf and picked up UA instead. Seriously, BoED is crap if you think about how it blew BoVD out of the water. You may call me a hypocrite for using one but not the other, but come on... I won't tell you that you are wrong to allow a PC to play such a class, but I will say this: I would never allow it in my campaign. Consequently, if you feel the need to nerf him, by all means, be my guest. If it were me, in your position, I would just say "Sorry, that class is too ridiculous. Thanks for the NPC, pick something else.
Mystic Theurge 02-19-05, 05:47 PM	Then I put the book back on the store-shelf shelf and picked up UA instead. And then... Seriously, BoED is crap if you think about how it blew BoVD out of the water. Figured that out by just looking at the AoP, hmm? Considering the apperant "fact" that people just aren't playing the class correctly in the first place, I would be inclined to agree with disallowing the class. But my perspective comes from a question of why a player would want to play such a class in the first place. If it comes down to it being a "power" build, I would disallow it (same goes for the VoP) because I would think that the player just doesn't understand the class. There shouldn't be anything overpowering about the AoP, and it shouldn't be played as a person going around stopping every combat just by touching opponents. (As I mentioned before, such an act is a FORCEFUL thing and, IMO, flies against what a true AoP stands for. Unless it is used as a last resort, it's boils down to taking away someone else's free will and conforming to your own, which should never be done lightly, and I am sure some would even agree that it is not an "exalted" act.) Honestly, there is really very little to even recommend the class. Speaking form experience, playing a pacifist character can be really quite boring unless the DM specificly tailors encounters for such a character, in which the character is often overshadowed by more bloodthirsty companions. In my campaign, if someone truly wants to play an AoP and demonstrates the maturity needed to play one (which should be evident by the time the character is eligible), I have no problem allowing the class. Of course, it also depends on the maturity of the entire group, which is often at odds with the motives of one player. I will say trhat because of the lack of maturity of many DMs and players alike, my BoED has seen very little use. I feel that when it is handled correctly and within the spirit of the rules, it is a very useful tool. That being said, there is nothing wrong with leaving it on the shelf. Based on your comments, I would even recommend it. However, just having perused the book once or twice hardly makes one an authority on it, does it?