InzemO.On's page

14 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


As lonq as one of the metamagic applied is 'quicken', the result id quick. Empower + quicken is a quick action.

Nostratus The Unbeliever wrote:
(...) saying ashes can keep the magic it's nonsense

That, is your opinion after too much reading of Mary Shelley ;-)

It is absolutely respectable, but it is only an opinion and consequently does not help the debate a lot.
I would prefer to read some references and facts within PFRPG, that support this opinion. Or, good reasons to handle such situations that way for the sake of keeping the game manageable, or fun, or balanced.

What is wrong with the statement that if these ashes are enougth of a creature to constitute a valid target for a Resurrection spell, then they are also enougth of it to retain some magical effects that affected the creature before it's death ? Or, if you take it another way, why should it be a nonsense in a context where resurrection, disintegration and magic in general are not ?

Nostratus wrote:
What is really surrealist is to say that pile of dust is a creature. After a disintegrate you can use ashes for ressurection, but ashes are not a creature anymore.

This sounds self contradictory : if you can target them with a Resurrection, it means that the ashes are a valid target, which is a 'dead creature', which is a 'creature' with the 'dead' condition. No creature, no resurrection. These ashes must be a (extremely dead) creature, otherwise you could not resurrect them.

I otherwise tend to agree that this is surrealist, but if you admit resurrection and disintegration as normal things, then you have to admit as well that disintegration ashes are actually (dead) creatures that can be resurrected ^^

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
So, technically, a dead character is not only a creature but is, technically, a living creature.

Quite a surrealist wording but yes, a dead character is a dead 'living creature', and a dead zombie would be a dead 'non-living (undead) creature'. I love this game :-)

Nostratus wrote:
The real difference between an object and a creature is its essence the creature is animal or human not the object. It is the soul that makes the creature (cf. Mary Shelley's Novel).

As AKPyroMancer I disagree with Nostratus : this may be Mary Shelley's perspective, but in Pathfinder creatures with a soul are qualified as 'living' creatures (ie, *really* living), as opposed to undeads and constructs who are not (really) 'living', but are creatures nevertheless :

found in chapter 'Magic', section 'Aiming a spell' wrote:
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead (link)

Following Adacanavar input and looking for references to dead characters :

PFRPG Glossary wrote:
(...) a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
and also wrote:
Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body.

link to quote#1, quote#2- So the dead character is still described in terms of hit points and constitution score : this is not how you would describe an object.

I would say, another argument in favor of retaining the 'creature' status after death, with the 'dead' condition.

Adacanavar wrote:
Everything i could find concerning dead players says they are creatures

Adacanavar, may i please ask you to be more specific with this *everything*, as this is precisely the object of the debate here ?

Personnally i found nothing saying that creatures become objects upon dying, except posts asserting so without argumentation.
But i found a few good arguments to support the opposite point of view : the definition of the target for Raise dead, Resurrection, Breath of Life seems to me a very straightforward and strong point; along with the above remark from Alec pointing that 'dead' is grammatically a qualifier for 'creature'.

wraithstrike wrote:
you are not valid for a spell targeting a creature (something that is alive)

But Raise dead targets a *dead* creature, what clearly implies that a creature is not necessarily something alive ...

@Ipslore the Red : yes, and this is exactly the purpose of my post, see if a final conclusion can be reached. Is this too ambitious ? ;-)

So is this the general consensus, as Hendelbolaf wrote : "even dead, you are still a creature" and by consequence still a valid spell target ?

The reasonning makes a lot of sense, and this has interesting consequences in the game. For example :
- Your non expired buffs do function again if you are brought back to life. Good for high level wizards :)
- If you die while invisible, you remain invisible until the spell expires. Too bad for low level rogues :(
- If you are dead, i can still target your body with a Magic missile.

And certainly many more i just can't imagine right now !

Does everybody agree with this ?
Thanks !

Ultimately your call, as the DM.
It essentially depends if many things have happened that were influenced by his death and would need to be re-played if this event is changed retroactively.
If too many happened, too bad. Don't replay, it's nearly always a mess.
Otherwise, i would make the player happy rather than frustrated.

There are actually two questions: the death of the caster, and the death of the target. When the mage applied a buff on himself, both questions are relevant.
- Death of the target: the spell may stop functioning because it becomes pointless on a non-living creature (like Darkvision) but why should it expire immediately ? I think it works like a poison, that will kill again a character raised from the dead if it is still active at this moment.
- Death of the caster : i believe that only spells that involve a continuous relationship between the effect and the caster (like, need to concentrate, or keep line of sight, etc) should be interrupted by death. Other spells had their magical energy given once for all at the moment they were cast, afterwards the caster is no longer involved: the spells will expire normally whatever happens to the him.

Now, more difficult : what if the dead wizard did cast some permanent spells on himself before he died ? For example, Darkvision + Permanency.

- Permanency is by definition permanent: it does not go away when the caster dies. So, the Darkvision spell will remain (ie continue expiring endlessly).
- In consequence, when the body of the mage becomes alive again - IF this is the same physical body that was the target of the permanent Darkvision spell, then the spell will resume functioning.

Also, regarding the question "Is a corpse a (dead) creature or an object ?", i believe that the body of a dead creature is not equivalent to an "object" :
- Obviously, a very recently dead corpse is still considered a creature (cf. very good point in above posts : if it was an object, the corpse could not be the target of a Breath of Life).
- Older corpses can still be brought to life with the appropriate spells, so to me, the status of such corpse appears clearly different of a generic "object".

What do you think ?
Thanks !

Thanks Tom, this makes a lot of sense.

That is, I think, a subtile question.
I believe that the answer actually depends on how exactly the Dispel was targeted.
From the spell descriptions :
- Spell Turning : "turns only spells that have *you* as a target"
- Targeted Dispel : "One object, creature, *or spell* is the target of the dispel magic spell"

in consequence:
a) If the Dispel is targeted to a creature (you) that has a Spell Turning in effect, the Spell Turning will be be triggered and return the Dispel to it's caster. Because YOU are the target of the Dispel.
b) But, if the Dispel is explicity targeted to the active Spell Turning effect, then the turning will not be triggered. Because the target is not you.

I believe the same same reasonning would apply to a Dispel targeted to an object you carry : as the target is not YOU, the Spell Turning effect is not triggered.

Contradiction welcome :)
Thanks !