So Playing a Wyrwood. RAW he can not benefit from False Life because he is immune to Necromancy effects as a construct. However in the case of Spectral Hand there is no target and the effect is not targeted at him. So can he cleave off 10pts of his animating force to make a Spectral Hand? RAW he can but am I missing something in regards to what a Necromancy effect is?
I don't see why targeting would be relevant. The construct type states that they are immune to "necromancy effects," not "targeted necromancy effects."
I don't see why targeting would be relevant. The construct type states that they are immune to "necromancy effects," not "targeted necromancy effects."
Because it is the difference between a spell effect and part of the casting requirement. "On casting the spell, you lose 1d4 hit points that return when the spell ends" This makes it seem more like a part of the casting process in the same way a focus or material component is. Maybe I am just confused because the rules are not meant to be used this way but frankly I'm just getting frustrated with this mess in general. I can fine all of one case where necromancy effect is actually used to describe something. It's like they wrote a key term into a paper and then forgot to use it.
Immunity is immunity. A construct can not benefit from or be harmed by a necromancy effect. Spectral hand, being part of the necromancy school of magic, is a necromancy effect. A construct can not benefit from the spell.
Immunity is immunity. A construct can not benefit from or be harmed by a necromancy effect. Spectral hand, being part of the necromancy school of magic, is a necromancy effect. A construct can not benefit from the spell.
So the spell just fails because it cant take off 10 points?
Immunity is immunity. A construct can not benefit from or be harmed by a necromancy effect. Spectral hand, being part of the necromancy school of magic, is a necromancy effect. A construct can not benefit from the spell.So the spell just fails because it cant take off 10 points?
It is 1d4 hit points, not 10. And yes*. The spell can not effect the construct - it can't cause him to lose hit points, and no ghostly hand can materialize. The entire spell is a necromancy effect, and it can't effect a construct.
*To clarify, the spell isn't failing because it can't take the hit points. The spell is failing because it is a necromancy effect trying to act on a construct. If a non-construct caster found some way to be immune to damage from necromancy spells (I know of no such way short of full immunity to necromancy effects, but just for example imagine there is a way), such a caster could still use spectral hand. Being immune to the damage isn't what is causing the spell to fail for the construct.
Immunity is immunity. A construct can not benefit from or be harmed by a necromancy effect. Spectral hand, being part of the necromancy school of magic, is a necromancy effect. A construct can not benefit from the spell.So the spell just fails because it cant take off 10 points?It is 1d4 hit points, not 10. And yes*. The spell can not effect the construct - it can't cause him to lose hit points, and no ghostly hand can materialize. The entire spell is a necromancy effect, and it can't effect a construct.
*To clarify, the spell isn't failing because it can't take the hit points. The spell is failing because it is a necromancy effect trying to act on a construct. If a non-construct caster found some way to be immune to damage from necromancy spells (I know of no such way short of full immunity to necromancy effects, but just for example imagine there is a way), such a caster could still use spectral hand. Being immune to the damage isn't what is causing the spell to fail for the construct.
F it I'm going to spend the time to make a Conjuration version using the spell creation section in Ultimate Magic.
Armband of the Golden Serpent at 20,000gp may be expensive. But it covers what you are looking to do.
technically you can still cast the spell but you would be immune to the damage you would take, roll 1d4 it gets 1d4 hit points but you are immune to the damage
As the hand is made up from the Hit Points as you lost, if you don’t lose any, there is no hand. Constructs don't have a life force, so nothing to make the hand with. You could make make a case of casting it on a friendly player or animal companion, taking the Hit Points from them.
If you want to cast those kind of spells, take a level of Sorcerer with Impossible Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Constructs are susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion) spells as if they were not mindaffecting. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
If you want to cast those kind of spells, take a level of Sorcerer with Impossible Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Constructs are susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion) spells as if they were not mindaffecting. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
That won't help with necromancy effects at all. A construct isn't immune because they aren't living creature - they are immune because it specifically says they are. That does nothing to remove the immunity to necromancy effects.
That does help with things like charm monster. As is, constructs are immune to that for 2 reasons. Fist, it is mind affecting. Second, it only targets living creatures. If you just get rid of the mind-affecting part, a construct would still be immune because it it only targets living creatures.
Jeraa: Can living creatures be targeted by the spells? "living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them". The immunity is meaningless as it comes from construct [not alive] and you can target as is it was a living creature.
I've been thinking about this for a while. I think it needs an FAQ, with regard to the "Bloodline Arcana".
Here is my suggested question.
Does the Bloodline Arcana allow constructs to be effected by necromancy effects and other things, even if the construct would normally be immune to them? Or is the intent only for things such as Brilliant Inspiration, which specifically calls out living creatures?
Does someone want to alter the wording before I post the FAQ? I'll let it sit for a while before making the FAQ. That way others have time to add input.
PS: I think the effect has to call out "living creatures". Otherwise everything that effects any living creature works, and the constructs loses a lot of immunities. Even things such as sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them.
Otherwise everything that effects any living creature works, and the constructs loses a lot of immunities. Even things such as sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them.
I don't see this as a problem as it's their schtick vs constructs.
For instance, look at Undead Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
Notice ALL the things undead lose? Things like "sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them." Seems like a clear parallel between this and Impossible Bloodline. Both change "which spells affect them".
Otherwise everything that effects any living creature works, and the constructs loses a lot of immunities. Even things such as sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them.I don't see this as a problem as it's their schtick vs constructs.
For instance, look at Undead Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
Notice ALL the things undead lose? Things like "sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them." Seems like a clear parallel between this and Impossible Bloodline. Both change "which spells affect them".
I think this one also intends to only apply to things that effect"humanoids". As an example "hold person" would work since it calls out humanoids, but something such as color spray wouldn't.
In related news cure light wounds calls out "living creatures in the spell description, but not in the "target" section. so I guess I can add that also when I finally make the FAQ.
no it means things like enlarge person,charm person, dominate person would work on them they would still have all the immunities of being undead except for the mind effecting immunities which the arcana bypasses, both the undead and construct bloodlines are only making them susceptible to mind effecting abilities and lowing the barrier of entry on such spells going from monster to personOtherwise everything that effects any living creature works, and the constructs loses a lot of immunities. Even things such as sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them.I don't see this as a problem as it's their schtick vs constructs.
For instance, look at Undead Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
Notice ALL the things undead lose? Things like "sleep, sicken, fatigue, and so on would work against them." Seems like a clear parallel between this and Impossible Bloodline. Both change "which spells affect them".
Then wouldn't the to worded to allow targeting instead of affect? For instance, look at oozemorph for an ability that does what you think this does.
"An oozemorph treats her creature type as both ooze and her base creature type from her race for the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as bane weapons and a ranger’s favored enemy)." If that's what undead/impossible does then they need completely reworded to make that happen.
wraithstrike: cure light wounds can't have living creature in the target line or you couldn't use it to damage undead.
then rewrite it they should cuz theres no way in hell a simple arcana strips a creature of literally all its immunities
It a simple arcane that targets a fairly rare type. Most games I've played isn't overrun with constructs so an ability to affect them should be stronger than one that works all the time, like an animal companion or a bonus to all spell damage. If it's a once in a blue moon monster that's affected, it should be impressive.
As to undead, removing immunities is as much a good thing as bad. Living creatures can be healed with cure spells, helpful necromancy spells [like raise dead].
So I'm not seeing the drama/dilemma over the reading I have of the abilities.