I was knocking around a character concept and remembered a feat from dragon 347 (pg 89) called Relicguard Spell as follows.
Relicguard Spell
[Metamagic]
Your spells do not damage objects.
Benefit: A relicguarded spell has no effect on objects. It cannot target an object and any object caught within its area is immune to it's effects, even if a creature holding the item is affected. Creatures immune to spells that do not affect objects (such as constructs and undead) are also immune to a relicguarded spell.
It's nice but there was no spell slot adjustment. Considering a Necromancer could let rip with area affect spells like fireball withe no fear of destroying his minions I was thinking the spell slot adjustment should be 2 or even 3. Any ideas?
Undead have "immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless)." They do not have blanket immunity to spells that don't work on objects... so a relicguarded fireball still damages undead, and a horrid wilting never affected them in the first place, with or without the relicguard feat.
Undead have "immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless)." They do not have blanket immunity to spells that don't work on objects... so a relicguarded fireball still damages undead, and a horrid wilting never affected them in the first place, with or without the relicguard feat.
As a Relicguarded spell does NOT affect objects it would not affect undead.
As a Relicguarded spell does NOT affect objects it would not affect undead.
Nope; read the undead description again. Undead are creatures, not objects.
As a Relicguarded spell does NOT affect objects it would not affect undead.Nope; read the undead description again. Undead are creatures, not objects.
Please read the feat and it's description again
Relicguard Spell [Metamagic]
Your spells do not damage objects.
Benefit: A relicguarded spell has no effect on objects. It cannot target an object and any object caught within its area is immune to it's effects, even if a creature holding the item is affected. Creatures immune to spells that do not affect objects (SUCH AS CONSTRUCTS AND UNDEAD) are also immune to a relicguarded spell.
Sorry; the official undead description (per the SRD) trumps the (incorrect) magazine feat description. Feel free to rule differently in your campaign, of course-- but in the core rules, undead are not immune to all spells that don't affect objects--they're only immune to the ones with Fort saves that don't affect objects. Peter von Bleichert (the feat's author) lacks the authority to alter the core rules of the game by his every mis-statement.
Sorry; the official undead description (per the SRD) trumps the (incorrect) magazine feat description. Feel free to rule differently in your campaign, of course-- but in the core rules, undead are not immune to all spells that don't affect objects--they're only immune to the ones with Fort saves that don't affect objects. Peter von Bleichert (the feat's author) lacks the authority to alter the core rules of the game by his every mis-statement.
OK time to swallow my pride and sit corrected. After looking over the descriptions for both Undead and constructs I now wonder why they bothered with mentioning them at all. I looked up a few constructs and many are immune to any spell that allows spell resistance in the first place.
After looking over the descriptions for both Undead and constructs I now wonder why they bothered with mentioning them at all.
Not your fault at all; the author missed it, as did the editors. Typically the Paizo efforts are far better, but in this case--given the impending ends of both Dungeon and Dragon--I suspect they had a few more pressing things on their minds than the technical syntax of a new feat. I agree that by striking the sentence about undead and constructs completely, the feat description is still useable and the whole issue becomes far less confusing.
WotC approves all Feats, even sometimes changing the authors original proposal. Sorry it caused such strife. Hope you liked the Archaeologist anyway (and my other Class Acts). We will all be missing writing for the Dragon.
After looking over the descriptions for both Undead and constructs I now wonder why they bothered with mentioning them at all.Not your fault at all; the author missed it, as did the editors. Typically the Paizo efforts are far better, but in this case--given the impending ends of both Dungeon and Dragon--I suspect they had a few more pressing things on their minds than the technical syntax of a new feat. I agree that by striking the sentence about undead and constructs completely, the feat description is still useable and the whole issue becomes far less confusing.
WotC approves all Feats, even sometimes changing the authors original proposal. Sorry it caused such strife. Hope you liked the Archaeologist anyway (and my other Class Acts). We will all be missing writing for the Dragon.
Hey, cool! Just wanted to clarify that we wouldn't bother to debate the fine points of the article if we had no use for it... in other words, nice job, and I'll miss your contributions as Dragon goes digital and I stay here on the physical Prime Material Plane.