In 3.5 you can't Raise dead or Ressurection anyone whose remains are animated as part of their soul is bound to the undead. I haven't seen anywhere in the PF where it addresses that. That was why it was an Evil spell in previous editions.
Yep yep.
If you can rez them, then their soul is stuck.
If it's stuck, then you're enslaving that soul against its will and forcing it to do your bidding.
It's Evil.
And it's torment, since there are few things in this life or beyond that would cause more suffering than being (possibly for all of eternity) blocked from arriving at your own personal afterlife Nirvana (or whatever it is to you). The ultimate reward for a lifetime of loyal servitude to your god, and you can't have it.
It's like dehydrating in the desert and just out of reach is the clearest, sweetest water you could ever dream of, and some mage or priest somewhere has cast a spell to keep you from it - forever. It's like that, but worse.
Torment is Evil too.
When it comes to evil, it only takes one strike to strike out, but in this case, you get two strikes on the same pitch.
Too bad there's no such thing as Double-Evil, or animating dead would qualify for that, too.
I found this response from a 2003 thread about whether or not Necromancers would be considered evil:
The morality of necromancers depends not only what is done by the necromancer but the morality and beliefs of the setting and the mechanics of how necromancy works.
In a fantasy setting where the afterlife is certain (as in most fantasy settings), the body could easily be seen as no more than clothes that a soul wears during life. If you can commune with great-great-great-great-uncle Thomas and he doesn't even know where his body is because he drowned at sea then the importance and sacrosanct nature of the body could easily change.
If, in this setting, animated skeletons and zombies are not bodies with souls bound to them but instead meat and bone that is infused with magical energy and programmed like a computer then there is no inherent reason why a necromancer's action should be considered evil. If the undead are sustained by magic and not by eating living people then there is no reason they couldn't perform a useful role in society. If they are mindless automatons following instructions then how are they any different from the robots that industry uses today ? For that matter if the undead were powered by captured souls, it wouldn't be any different from the slavery/serfdom that exists in most fantasy settings.
It does take away the mystique of the necromancer though. He's no more scary than the illusionist that makes a living entertaining the rich.
Necromancers are more interesting if they at least straddle the line between good and evil, if, within the setting, there are at least doubts and queries of the morality of necromancy.
Also note that if the Pathfinder monster rules are used from the bestiary, skeletons and zombies are no longer N in alighnment, they are NE which may have some bearing on non-evil characters animating them (and now it makes sense for teh animiate dead spell to be evil). Note also that though zombies and skeletons have an Int of -, they do have a wisdom score of 10 (equal to an average human). It could be argued that once they kill someone they have the wisdom not to contiue that person.Even without evil skeletons or zombies, the fact that the spell itself is evil already presents a problem for neutral characters to run around animating the dead.
Evil is as Evil does...
But now it's even more true, and I am quite glad to see it. I could never hold with the idea of sucking someone's soul out of heaven (or whatever their god's equivalent might be) and ramming it into their remains to animate their corpse to do your bidding - all the while pretending it's not evil to do so.
It's enforced slavery of the soul for personal gain.
Worse, it's virtually the worst kind of torture, denying that soul the absolute bliss of whatever their god's version of eternal bliss would be. If for no other reason, being denied that and force to serve while you're soul is bound to your shambling remains would be torment unimaginable.
Definitely evil.
If that's how you define necromancy as working, then yes.
But consider this: The souls of warriors, hanging out in Valhalla, fighting with each other every day for the glory of battle but basically having their Heaven be an endless SCA war with no point or glory beyond what they're making for themselves. Suddenly a necromancer pops them back to earth as ghosts or draugs and offers them a chance to beat the snot out of the guys who killed them.
I had a necromancer do this in game: Create some free-willed undead, and rather than Command them via your kewl necromantic powerz, use Diplomacy to get them to do what you want, with a large circumstance bonus because it's what they want too. Revenants do this already on their own power. All your necromancer is doing is offering free airfare.
Yes, the souls in the various paradises that consist of houri sucking your toes and feeding you peeled grapes might think that animating your old corpse to go kick someone's butt would be less than thrilling, but honestly, those souls are only summoned by incompetent necromancers who don't have the sense to do a seance first. Just pull out the OUIJA board
NECROMANCER: "Hey, anyone out there who'd like a piece of Lord Dargon? You know, Dargon the Butcher?"
SPIRITS: "Me!" "Me!" "Pick me!"
NECROMANCER: "Okay, no need to crowd. Plenty of room in my undead horde for everyone."
Now, you can argue that every dead person has some god give them their utterly fantabulous dream paradise the moment they die, so there's no way any of them would ever want to come back, but since there are free-willed undead that arise without the intercession of any necromancer, this is obviously false. Either the gods are too busy or lazy to give everyone perfect paradises the moment they die, or else, for some people, their perfect paradise is coming back to earth as undead. Either way, a competent necromancer should be able to find willing souls for just about any task and not have a slave revolt on his hand if he gets knocked unconscious or, more to the point, dies.
Even an evil necromancer would find it a matter of enlightened self interest to be reasonably nice to the dead he knows he's going to eventually join one way or the other.
If that's how you define necromancy as working, then yes.
But consider this: The souls of warriors, hanging out in Valhalla, fighting with each other every day for the glory of battle but basically having their Heaven be an endless SCA war with no point or glory beyond what they're making for themselves. Suddenly a necromancer pops them back to earth as ghosts or draugs and offers them a chance to beat the snot out of the guys who killed them.
Well, maybe.
But two problems:
1. They really like their endless SCA war. That's what they live for, that's what they died for, and that's why Valhalla is an enless SCA war - because every good viking dreams of dying heroically so he can be carried off by the valkyries and participate that that glorious war. To you it might seem pointless and inglorious, but to these guys, it's absolutely heavenly (or they would probably have worshipped a different god in life).
2. There is no duration on the "pop back to earth as ghosts" deal. Chances are they know that (although maybe Mr. Necromancer might make a good bluff roll and fool them). So, it's very likely that their term of servitude as ghosts on Earth might be indefinite. Years. Decades. Centuries. Millennia. Longer...
Given that, these warriors have to weigh the options:
Stay here and fight in this lovely eternal SCA war that they love so much, or take a chance and trust a necromancer that he'll keep his word and summon them as ghosts only long enough to get their revenge so they can return quickly back to their war.
I dunno, but if I were one of those warriors lounging around valhalla, I'd raise a mug of ale to toast the guy that killed me for a battle well-fought and I would hope that one day soon the valkyrie will haul his butt up here to fight at my side as allies. Then I would forget about him and get back to planning my next raid on the Hrimdalfar.
Imagine how much more irritating it would be if he pops them out of a glorious battle before he asks permission...
I sure hope he asks first, and then pops after they agree.
If they agree.
All of which is assuming Mr. Necromancer was kind enough to offer them the option, which by the way, Animate Dead does not - no options implicit in the spell at all. So, assuming he uses Speak With Dead to find the rare spirit who is willing and gullible enough to sign up for some revenge, and only animates their corpses, and returns them when their agreed-upon job is finished, well, then maybe the use is not quite so evil, although it's easily argued that revenge and vigilantism are evil and/or unlawful, and aiding and abetting such evil/unlawful actions by animating spirits for such purposes is equally evil/unlawful - but that's a different discussion.
There's also the fact that the "endless war" in Valhalla wasn't pointless. In fact, it had a very, very important point: To gather all the strongest warriors of history and train them to fight in Ragnarok, the final battle between the Gods and the forces of Chaos. By stealing souls from Valhalla, you're weakening the strength of the Gods in that final battle.
There's also the fact that the "endless war" in Valhalla wasn't pointless. In fact, it had a very, very important point: To gather all the strongest warriors of history and train them to fight in Ragnarok, the final battle between the Gods and the forces of Chaos. By stealing souls from Valhalla, you're weakening the strength of the Gods in that final battle.
Eh, it could be looked at as R&R or a training mission. Certainly you should let characters retain any experience they gain as undead in the interim.
But my necromancer succeeded in his Diplomacy check: "Oh, sure, fine, you can go back to Valhalla, but ever after in the mead hall, you're going to have people talking about 'Sven the Coward.' Go ahead and go. I'm certain I can find a braver warrior."
Of course, it also helped that my necromancer was also good to his word, so had started to gather a reputation in the spirit world as the necromancer you wanted to be summoned by.
It also freaked out the evil priests that I'd summoned undead more powerful than I could control but I was getting them to do what I wanted via Diplomacy.
There's also the fact that the "endless war" in Valhalla wasn't pointless. In fact, it had a very, very important point: To gather all the strongest warriors of history and train them to fight in Ragnarok, the final battle between the Gods and the forces of Chaos. By stealing souls from Valhalla, you're weakening the strength of the Gods in that final battle.Eh, it could be looked at as R&R or a training mission. Certainly you should let characters retain any experience they gain as undead in the interim.
And what if Ragnarok occurs while you're stealing souls from the Gods?
The souls who get eternal torment are not the ones who pledge their service to evil gods. Those souls are rewarded in their evil afterlife.
Depends on your personal game's cosmology, of course; but you might want to read the lemure description in Bestiary Preview II.
I'm going to sit in the the "evil because you're blocking resurrection" camp, with a solid nod to the "evil is not the same thing as bad" conversation on The Alignment Thread.
And what if Ragnarok occurs while you're stealing souls from the Gods?
Well now that's just terrible luck. (Moreso once Tyr gets a hold of you.)
This is a bit of a tangent, but how do they plan to explain how a mindless thing can be evil? It's not an impossible problem, as I vaguely remember someone suggesting a "default program" for mindless undead, where barring other orders they eat people or chase the cat or tear up the lawn, but I'm curious what the PF approach will be.
Alignment isn't just a moral stance, but a cosmic status. No, the mindless undead are not themselves evil beings acting evilly, but they are actually made of evil and animated by it, in the form of negative energy. Thus, for all purposes, evil.
But now it's even more true, and I am quite glad to see it. I could never hold with the idea of sucking someone's soul out of heaven (or whatever their god's equivalent might be) and ramming it into their remains to animate their corpse to do your bidding - all the while pretending it's not evil to do so.
Where does it say you trap the soul? I always interpreted making lowly zombies and skeletons and other unintelligent undead as just animating a vacated vessel. The whole "cannot rez" thing doesn't seem to have anything to do with the soul, and everything to do with the body currently being in use. I don't see anything that says Grandma Dwarfington isn't still happily in heaven as her animated corpse tries to eat her grandson.
However, for some reason, making a golem isn't considered evil even though the process includes binding an elemental, so making a golem explicitly requires you to ensnare and enslave a sentient being.
Double standard much?
but they are actually made of evil and animated by it, in the form of negative energy. Thus, for all purposes, evil.
Actually, if I recall from the Pathfinder planar handbook, negative energy has no alignment affiliation. I don't own a copy though (it's a friend's and I only read through it once), so I may be mis-remembering.
Actually, if I recall from the Pathfinder planar handbook, negative energy has no alignment affiliation. I don't own a copy though (it's a friend's and I only read through it once), so I may be mis-remembering.
Well. There is still the evilmancy in making them. They are essentially an ongoing of an evil spell, which would give them an evil aura. If nothing else, they ought probably detect as evil.
Though really, I think necromancy gets an excessively ebul rep that really should be more well thought-out and handled with more tact than a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
Though really, I think necromancy gets an excessively ebul rep that really should be more well thought-out and handled with more tact than a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
I definitely agree with this. Among other things, I miss the cure spells, regenerate, etc, being Necromancy.
Though really, I think necromancy gets an excessively ebul rep that really should be more well thought-out and handled with more tact than a Saturday morning cartoon villain.I definitely agree with this. Among other things, I miss the cure spells, regenerate, etc, being Necromancy.
It's a pretty easy house rule to put them back under Necromancy. It's what I do, and same with a number of other DMs I know.
The current division is particularly ridiculous when you consider that Regenerate is listed as Conjuration (Healing) whereas Clone is listed as Necromancy. And the difference between the two spells is what precisely?
I think the desire to have necromancers be Saturday morning cartoon villains is about the only explanation. In 1st ed they were both listed as "Necromantic" which makes logical sense as metaphysics.
Though really, I think necromancy gets an excessively ebul rep that really should be more well thought-out and handled with more tact than a Saturday morning cartoon villain.I definitely agree with this. Among other things, I miss the cure spells, regenerate, etc, being Necromancy.It's a pretty easy house rule to put them back under Necromancy. It's what I do, and same with a number of other DMs I know.
The current division is particularly ridiculous when you consider that Regenerate is listed as Conjuration (Healing) whereas Clone is listed as Necromancy. And the difference between the two spells is what precisely?
I think the desire to have necromancers be Saturday morning cartoon villains is about the only explanation. In 1st ed they were both listed as "Necromantic" which makes logical sense as metaphysics.
Honestly,
The best thing I've seen in my own games (granted, I'm the GM what done it) is what I did for a campaign about 5 years ago.I got rid of Druids, Clerics and Wizards. The only magic wielding class were Mages (based off Sorcerers). Each school of magic was based off a color. White Magic was curative. Black Magic was negative energy/necromantic. Red Magic was fire based. Blue magic was Water based. Yellow Magic was light based. Brown was Earth based. Purple was Choatic magic. Green was Nature magic. You get the idea. Every spell in the main book, the spell compendium, the splat books, etc were divided up into the various schools (with a small list that were 'universal' spells like read magic, detect magic, etc).
It went over VERY well with the players, and they loved the idea.
A Red mage could only cast Red Magic, a White only White Magic.
Though really, I think necromancy gets an excessively ebul rep that really should be more well thought-out and handled with more tact than a Saturday morning cartoon villain.I definitely agree with this. Among other things, I miss the cure spells, regenerate, etc, being Necromancy.It's a pretty easy house rule to put them back under Necromancy. It's what I do, and same with a number of other DMs I know.
The current division is particularly ridiculous when you consider that Regenerate is listed as Conjuration (Healing) whereas Clone is listed as Necromancy. And the difference between the two spells is what precisely?
I think the desire to have necromancers be Saturday morning cartoon villains is about the only explanation. In 1st ed they were both listed as "Necromantic" which makes logical sense as metaphysics.
Honestly,
The best thing I've seen in my own games (granted, I'm the GM what done it) is what I did for a campaign about 5 years ago.I got rid of Druids, Clerics and Wizards. The only magic wielding class were Mages (based off Sorcerers). Each school of magic was based off a color. White Magic was curative. Black Magic was negative energy/necromantic. Red Magic was fire based. Blue magic was Water based. Yellow Magic was light based. Brown was Earth based. Purple was Choatic magic. Green was Nature magic. You get the idea. Every spell in the main book, the spell compendium, the splat books, etc were divided up into the various schools (with a small list that were 'universal' spells like read magic, detect magic, etc).
It went over VERY well with the players, and they loved the idea.
A Red mage could only cast Red Magic, a White only White Magic.
What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepaku
What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepaku
It went over VERY well with the players, and they loved the idea.A Red mage could only cast Red Magic, a White only White Magic.
Pretty much. :) They still enjoyed it a lot.
Pretty much. :) They still enjoyed it a lot.What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepaku
It went over VERY well with the players, and they loved the idea.A Red mage could only cast Red Magic, a White only White Magic.
As long as everyone's having fun.
What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepaku
Sure, Command Elemental. Command: "Commit Sepaku" or more prosaically "Go jump in the lake."
Fire elemental does so. End of fire elemental.
The souls who get eternal torment are not the ones who pledge their service to evil gods. Those souls are rewarded in their evil afterlife.Depends on your personal game's cosmology, of course; but you might want to read the lemure description in Bestiary Preview II.
What, are you referring to this line: "When at the end of a mortal life
a creature’s soul is damned—whether because it revered diabolical forces or failed in the worship of another deity..." ?That changes nothing.
Just because they reference that revering diabolical forces can result in damning your soul to eternity of torment as a lemure, doesn't mean that it was their intent to imply that revering diabolical forces automatically damns your soul to this fate.
They're merely saying that if you revere diabolical forces, you can end up as a lemure. Nowhere in this description does it say you must end up as a lemure.
Here, I'll add (implied) the words they left out:
"When at the end of a mortal life, a creature's soul is damned - whether because it revered diabolical forces and screwed up (for it is certain that those who don't screw up are not damned; they rise immediately to the ranks of fiendish servitors) or failed in the worship of another deity..."
Does it have to be read this way? No, of course not. You can read it as they literally wrote it, assuming nothing and inferring nothing that isn't there in black or white.
But, if the assumption is that revering diabolical forces gets you a tiny little brief instant of power in your mortal life followed by an eternity of torment as a lemure, no matter how well you serve those diabolical forces, then I doubt anyone would ever make the mistake of revering such forces. It's just not worth it, no matter how sick and twisted and evil you are. Just go find a cleric of a good good, or at least a neutral god, then repent and try to stay in good grace until you croak. Your eternity will be well-worth it.
To me, it's just outright silly to think any demon, devil, evil god, or diabolical force of any kind would even bother to make such a stupid offer: "Hey, enjoy your power for a few years, then when someone knifes you in the back, we'll be waiting to begin your eternity of torment. Just sign the dotted line."
It cannot possibly work that way in any cosmology that is more rationally thought out than Sesame Street.
What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepaku
Hint hint: Searing Spell. Now just fire off a fireball so hot it can burn a fire elemental to death. No, I don't know how that works.
Consecrate Spell works as well (turns half the damage dice into divine damage).
Those work, sure, but then you're killing the fire elemental with divine damage. That's not nearly as awesome as actually being able to burn it to death.
The souls who get eternal torment are not the ones who pledge their service to evil gods. Those souls are rewarded in their evil afterlife.Depends on your personal game's cosmology, of course; but you might want to read the lemure description in Bestiary Preview II.
What, are you referring to this line: "When at the end of a mortal life
a creature’s soul is damned—whether because it revered diabolical forces or failed in the worship of another deity..." ?That changes nothing.
Just because they reference that revering diabolical forces can result in damning your soul to eternity of torment as a lemure, doesn't mean that it was their intent to imply that revering diabolical forces automatically damns your soul to this fate.
They're merely saying that if you revere diabolical forces, you can end up as a lemure. Nowhere in this description does it say you must end up as a lemure.
Here, I'll add (implied) the words they left out:
"When at the end of a mortal life, a creature's soul is damned - whether because it revered diabolical forces and screwed up (for it is certain that those who don't screw up are not damned; they rise immediately to the ranks of fiendish servitors) or failed in the worship of another deity..."
Does it have to be read this way? No, of course not. You can read it as they literally wrote it, assuming nothing and inferring nothing that isn't there in black or white.
But, if the assumption is that revering diabolical forces gets you a tiny little brief instant of power in your mortal life followed by an eternity of torment as a lemure, no matter how well you serve those diabolical forces, then I doubt anyone would ever make the mistake of revering such forces. It's just not worth it, no matter how sick and twisted and evil you are. Just go find a cleric of a good good, or at least a neutral god, then repent and try to stay in good grace until you croak. Your eternity will be well-worth it.
To me, it's just outright silly to think any demon, devil, evil god, or diabolical force of any kind would even bother to make such a stupid offer: "Hey, enjoy your power for a few years, then when someone knifes you in the back, we'll be waiting to begin your eternity of torment. Just sign the dotted line."
It cannot possibly work that way in any cosmology that is more rationally thought out than Sesame Street.
Given the nature of Hell, it's pretty easy to view Lemures like frat house pledges undergoing hazing, or pollywogs undergoing the process of becoming shellbacks in a naval line ceremony.
The "eternity of torture" is also subject to Hell's own rules. Here, read "eternity" as "a span that can range from three hours to three millennia, but probably lies somewhere between."
But honestly, I think the devils would know talent when they see it. The genuinely evil are likely promoted to the hierarchy of hell in whatever capacity best suits their needs, as opposed to the needs of Sunday school teachers writing Sunday school twaddle.
But honestly, I think the devils would know talent when they see it. The genuinely evil are likely promoted to the hierarchy of hell in whatever capacity best suits their needs, as opposed to the needs of Sunday school teachers writing Sunday school twaddle.
Exactly my point.
A living mortal signs on with a diabolical force of some kind, and proceeds to serve it well, proving his evil and effective nature to the forces he serves.
Then he kicks the bucket.
His sould goes on to his eternal reward: the diabolical force he served in death puts him to work serving in death, in the form of something useful to him (certainly not a lemure). Maybe he makes him a more effective devil/demon/fiend/etc. of some kind, or maybe he lets him retain the majority of a semblance to his living self, or whatever.
But if he was useful in life, he'll also be useful in death - an no diabolical force will be content to this useful tool rot in the form of a lemure for something between 3 hours and 3 millennium just for the sake of a little fiendish hazing.
And most importantly, these diabolical forces are down there in the world of man, recruiting, trying to sweet talk some new talent to join the mortal team. The last thing they want is potential recruits finding out that years of perfect mortal service are "rewarded" by millennia of findish torment. That would be the worst recruiting fiasco in mortal or fiendish history.
But if he was useful in life, he'll also be useful in death - an no diabolical force will be content to this useful tool rot in the form of a lemure for something between 3 hours and 3 millennium just for the sake of a little fiendish hazing.And most importantly, these diabolical forces are down there in the world of man, recruiting, trying to sweet talk some new talent to join the mortal team. The last thing they want is potential recruits finding out that years of perfect mortal service are "rewarded" by millennia of findish torment. That would be the worst recruiting fiasco in mortal or fiendish history.
I've always kind of looked on the Lemures and other demonic creatures bound to hell souls as being the thoroughly corrupted souls of those the demons either tricked into doing evil deeds (fallen Paladin or Clerics for example, those who got tricked into letting their souls fall to the evil deities), or, as souls who were sacrificed to the deity's by their human followers. Those souls being corrupted and bound by evil into flesh and forced to be evil on the material plane. A sort of hellish irony that they are now hunted and tormented by good, which failed to save them in the first place.
But if he was useful in life, he'll also be useful in death - an no diabolical force will be content to this useful tool rot in the form of a lemure for something between 3 hours and 3 millennium just for the sake of a little fiendish hazing.
Oh, I think a little fiendish hazing is a good idea, if just as a team building exercise. Make it a "Hell Week" that's an actual week in the mortal world, and let the new Hellish recruits make bonds and alliances with other who died the same week, and let them do a "revolt of the pollywogs" same as is done in a naval line ceremony. At the end of the week, you hand them their horns and pitchforks and welcome them to the team.
Of course I doubt the elite lemures would ever have their intelligence drop to 0. It's more a case of dressing the pledges in an embarrassing costume for a little bit.
What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepakuHint hint: Searing Spell. Now just fire off a fireball so hot it can burn a fire elemental to death. No, I don't know how that works.
*bangs head on table* *bangs head on table* I will give you full credit where it is due. That, sir, in fact, is awesome, however I now feel the need to *bangs head on table*
*bangs head on table* *bangs head on table* I will give you full credit where it is due. That, sir, in fact, is awesome, however I now feel the need to *bangs head on table*What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepakuHint hint: Searing Spell. Now just fire off a fireball so hot it can burn a fire elemental to death. No, I don't know how that works.
You can also combo it with City Magic from Cityscape, where half the damage of any spell you do comes from untyped "city" damage which also has no resistances. So if you did a searing citified fireball, you could do full damaging to a fire elemental with no immunity whatsoever.
You can also combo it with City Magic from Cityscape, where half the damage of any spell you do comes from untyped "city" damage which also has no resistances. So if you did a searing citified fireball, you could do full damaging to a fire elemental with no immunity whatsoever.
Hmmm, I don't think I'd rule it that way. I'd rule it like this :
10D6 Fireball
Convert to citified
10D6 Citified Fire Fireball (5d6 City/5d6 Fire)
Convert to Searing
10d6 Citified Searing Fireball (5d6 City/5d6 Searing Fire)
Damage?
7.5d6 to a Fire Elemental
10d6 to anyone else (who doesn't have fire resistance).
It works the same if you do it the other way.
10D6 Fireball
Convert to Searing
10d6 Searing Fireball (10d6 Searing Fire, does 5d6 vs fire resistance)
Convert to Citified
10d6 Searing Citified Fireball (5d6 searing fire/5d6 city)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You can also combo it with City Magic from Cityscape, where half the damage of any spell you do comes from untyped "city" damage which also has no resistances. So if you did a searing citified fireball, you could do full damaging to a fire elemental with no immunity whatsoever.
I'd say two halves make a third.
So Searing City Fireball from 12th level Wizard is:
4d6 Searing 4d6 City 4d6 Fire
*bangs head on table* *bangs head on table* I will give you full credit where it is due. That, sir, in fact, is awesome, however I now feel the need to *bangs head on table*What do red mages use against fire elementals? oh... sepakuHint hint: Searing Spell. Now just fire off a fireball so hot it can burn a fire elemental to death. No, I don't know how that works.
Another odd thing was the snow magic/ cold focus/ Frost mage/elemental savant combo... basically the same thing in reverse (aka with cold) but the frost mage gets to put full damage through in most cases.
You can also combo it with City Magic from Cityscape, where half the damage of any spell you do comes from untyped "city" damage which also has no resistances. So if you did a searing citified fireball, you could do full damaging to a fire elemental with no immunity whatsoever.I'd say two halves make a third.
So Searing City Fireball from 12th level Wizard is:
4d6 Searing 4d6 City 4d6 Fire
Two halves make a third?
Uh.... sorry, I have a math degree. Two halves make a whole. Or, if you mean, halve something twice, you get a quarter.
1.00 * 1/2 = 0.50
0.50 * 1/2 = 0.25
The way City Magic Works is not that it halves the damage, it takes half the total and changes it to a different type (sort of like the mixed energy metamagic feats that let you do half fire and half acid for example).
So a 10D6 that has the City bonus is 5d6 whatever it was before and 5d6 of City damage, still 10D6 Total.
The way Searing works is, it does full damage to anything that doesn't have fire resistance/fire immunity and half damage to anything that does have either resistance or immunity. So the only actual halving of damage is if the target has resistance or immunity, and it's only the Fire half of the spell that get's halved, not the Citi half. So, you'd get full damage against anything that didn't have resistance or immunity, and 3/4 damage (50% from the City, and half of 50% from the Searing) against anything that had immunity or resistance.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Two halves make a third?
I'm fairly adept in math, but math and D&D are not the same.
It doesn't make any sense (rules wise) to make the fire become X and then "half" the damage to make the remaining fire become Y.
So you can go by a shaky interpretation supported by "dude it is RAW" when there is no rule saying to do it the way you suggest.
Instead you could interpret it the way it is intended, which would be one of these two:
1) Each get a third: Fire, City, Searing (most likely intent)
2) Fire is half, the other half is both City and Searing (less likely intent)
3) Fire is half, one quarter is City, one quarter is Searing (least likely)
Searing isn't a damage type. Searing states that half of any fire damage dealt by a Searing spell ignores fire immunity.
Instead you could interpret it the way it is intended, which would be one of these two:1) Each get a third: Fire, City, Searing (most likely intent)
2) Fire is half, the other half is both City and Searing (less likely intent)
3) Fire is half, one quarter is City, one quarter is Searing (least likely)
*sigh* Ok, let's go back to the Searing.
Searing Spell [METAMAGIC]
Your fire spells are so hot that they can damage creatures that normally have resistance or immunity to fire.
Benefit: A searing spell is so hot that it ignores the resistance to fire of the creatures affected by the spell, and affected creatures with immunity to fire still take half damage. This feat can be applied only to spells with the fire descriptor.
Creatures with the cold subtype take double damage from a searing spell. Creatures affected by a searing spell are still entitled to whatever saving throw the spell normally allows. A searing spell takes up a slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
The problem with your interpretation is you are assuming the Searing only applies to half the fire. It applies to, and replaces, the fire entirely. All the fire dice become Searing dice instead. The only thing that get's halfed is the damage if the target creature has immunity to fire. They take full if they have resistance, and double if they are cold subtype.
To be honest, I forgot about the resistance being bypassed completely myself. But, I remembered that the searing applies to all the dice, not just half of them.
Now, when you stack it with city, which specifically says that half the damage of the spell becomes city, you don't end up with thirds, you end up with two halfs. The searing affects all the spell's fire damage, and the city affects half the spells damage, whatever it is. So a 12d6 fireball would do 6d6 Searing (fire) and 6d6 City.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Searing isn't a damage type. Searing states that half of any fire damage dealt by a Searing spell ignores fire immunity.
Oh, I was working on it being written identical to City.
In that case, you get:
Half City, Quarter Fire (Searing), Quarter Fire (not Searing)
So a 12d6 fireball would do 6d6 Searing (fire) and 6d6 City.
Based on the rules segment you post, I dont' agree with you.
If you apply Searing first:
12d6 -> 6d6 Searing Fire + 6d6 Fire
Then apply City:
3d6 Searing Fire + 3d6 City + 3d6 Fire + 3d6 City = 3d6 SF + 3d6 F + 6d6 C
If you apply City first:
12d6 -> 6d6 City + 6d6 Fire
Then apply Searing:
6d6 City + 3d6 Searing Fire + 3d6 Fire
In short, you don't have a rule that specifies what happens in the event you apply an effect (such as Searing) to a [Fire] spell that doesn't deal all fire damage (as is assumed) and the best case is to go strict and prevent the Searing from enhancing the City damage (which isn't hot.)
I'd say two halves make a third.
It would be a houserule, but two halves making a third actually is consistent with D&D math, considering how multipliers stack. Remember, this is a world where X*2*2=3X.
Based on the rules segment you post, I dont' agree with you.If you apply Searing first:
12d6 -> 6d6 Searing Fire + 6d6 Fire
Then apply City:
3d6 Searing Fire + 3d6 City + 3d6 Fire + 3d6 City = 3d6 SF + 3d6 F + 6d6 CIf you apply City first:
12d6 -> 6d6 City + 6d6 Fire
Then apply Searing:
6d6 City + 3d6 Searing Fire + 3d6 FireIn short, you don't have a rule that specifies what happens in the event you apply an effect (such as Searing) to a [Fire] spell that doesn't deal all fire damage (as is assumed) and the best case is to go strict and prevent the Searing from enhancing the City damage (which isn't hot.)
In that case, here is the result of your approach when casting it at someone with Resistance :
If someone has Resistance(Fire) 10.
All 6D6 hit from City.
The 3D6 from Searing do full damage (searing ignores Resistance).
The 3D6 from Fire do 3d6-10 because of the resistance (Note that if they remain just fire, Resistance still affects them).
That is why I maintain that your interpretation is wrong, because it violates the example given in the rule where someone with Resistance took full damage.
I'd say two halves make a third.It would be a houserule, but two halves making a third actually is consistent with D&D math, considering how multipliers stack. Remember, this is a world where X*2*2=3X.
LOL
Actually, I never said two halves make a third, the way you quoted is a little confusing. :)And it might, given an odd rule. But the one quoted was pretty clear on how it worked.
LOL
Actually, I never said two halves make a third, the way you quoted is a little confusing. :)
Oops. Wrong quote. *Shrug.*
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If someone has Resistance(Fire) 10.
All 6D6 hit from City.
The 3D6 from Searing do full damage (searing ignores Resistance).
The 3D6 from Fire do 3d6-10 because of the resistance (Note that if they remain just fire, Resistance still affects them).That is why I maintain that your interpretation is wrong, because it violates the example given in the rule where someone with Resistance took full damage.
That is exactly as I see the RAW working. You say you have an example of a Searing City example in a WotC book that differs? The Searing listed above is compliant with this interpretation.
That is exactly as I see the RAW working. You say you have an example of a Searing City example in a WotC book that differs? The Searing listed above is compliant with this interpretation.If someone has Resistance(Fire) 10.
All 6D6 hit from City.
The 3D6 from Searing do full damage (searing ignores Resistance).
The 3D6 from Fire do 3d6-10 because of the resistance (Note that if they remain just fire, Resistance still affects them).That is why I maintain that your interpretation is wrong, because it violates the example given in the rule where someone with Resistance took full damage.
No it's not. See above where I typed it directly from the book. It says it totally bypasses resistance. Resistance is completely ineffective against Searing. Your interpretation has Resistance actually being useful against Searing.
Quoted again, relevant part in bold this time.
Searing Spell [METAMAGIC]
Your fire spells are so hot that they can damage creatures that normally have resistance or immunity to fire.
Benefit: A searing spell is so hot that it ignores the resistance to fire of the creatures affected by the spell, and affected creatures with immunity to fire still take half damage. This feat can be applied only to spells with the fire descriptor.
Creatures with the cold subtype take double damage from a searing spell. Creatures affected by a searing spell are still entitled to whatever saving throw the spell normally allows. A searing spell takes up a slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
That is exactly as I see the RAW working.
The extra 50% damage from an empowered spell isn't "empowered damage," and likewise there is no such thing as "searing damage" from a searing spell. It's just the name of a metamagic feat, not a descriptor. The damage is still fire damage. The metamagic causes this fire damage to ignore all fire resistance. Normally this would have no effect against fire immunity, but as a special rule the spell does 50% damage to a fire immune creature. Also as a special rule, the spell does double damage (rather than 1.5x) to a creature with the cold subtype.
City damage is an actual descriptor. When 50% of the spell's damage is converted to the city type, it is no longer fire damage and therefore not subject to fire resistance. The other 50% is still fire. If the spell is made searing, the 50% which is fire damage bypasses all fire resistance and deals half damage to fire immune creatures.
So: 50% of the damage goes through fire immunity because it's irrelevant. Of the remaining 50%, all of which is fire, a fire immune creature is caused half damage (i.e. 25% of the original spell) by the searing metamagic. Three quarters of the total damage goes through.
(Unless the target is under the effects of protection from energy which, being a different mechanic than any of those specified by the Searing Spell feat, would still negate all of the fire damage. Then only the 50% which became city damage is applied.)
That is exactly as I see the RAW working.The extra 50% damage from an empowered spell isn't "empowered damage," and likewise there is no such thing as "searing damage" from a searing spell. It's just the name of a metamagic feat, not a descriptor. The damage is still fire damage. The metamagic causes this fire damage to ignore all fire resistance. Normally this would have no effect against fire immunity, but as a special rule the spell does 50% damage to a fire immune creature. Also as a special rule, the spell does double damage (rather than 1.5x) to a creature with the cold subtype.
City damage is an actual descriptor. When 50% of the spell's damage is converted to the city type, it is no longer fire damage and therefore not subject to fire resistance. The other 50% is still fire. If the spell is made searing, the 50% which is fire damage bypasses all fire resistance and deals half damage to fire immune creatures.
So: 50% of the damage goes through fire immunity because it's irrelevant. Of the remaining 50%, all of which is fire, a fire immune creature is caused half damage (i.e. 25% of the original spell) by the searing metamagic. Three quarters of the total damage goes through.
(Unless the target is under the effects of protection from energy which, being a different mechanic than any of those specified by the Searing Spell feat, would still negate all of the fire damage. Then only the 50% which became city damage is applied.)
Which is pretty much what I said. Just used Searing as an add on to help visualize it. Against an enemy with just resistance or no fire defense it would still do full damage, and 3/4 damage to a fire immune creature.
I agree though, protection from energy should work normally (the damage comes off it first, until it's gone, but only the fire damage, the city would go right on through that as well).