Paladin's Sacrifice is a new spell in the APG on p 234. It lets a paladin suck up the suffering from another character. I'm confused by the text of this spell.
When a creature in range is hit by an attack or fails a saving throw, you can cast this spell and the wounds and/or effects are magically transmitted to you instead of the target. You are affected as if you were hit by the attack or failed the saving throw, taking all the damage and suffering all of the adverse effects. Any resistances or immunities you have are applied normally, but you cannot otherwise reduce or negate the damage or effects in any way.
1. Does the Paladin cast the spell on his turn, after the damage has been counted? What if the original damage killed the first character?
2. It says that the paladin suffers saved fails from the first character and then it says 'any resistances or immunities you have are applied normally'.
So the first character gets hit by a fear affect and a bunch of damage. They roll 5 on all their saving throw rolls. (For the sake of argument)
The Paladin casts this spell before his turn and removes the damage?
or
The first character suffers the fear affect and runs out of the room and then the Paladin casts the spell on his initiative?
The Paladin is immune to the fear affect the first character suffered.
Does he disregard that part of the damage?
Does he suffer the affect because the original target did?
Presumably its as if he failed his saves or does he recalculate rolls Based on the 5 rolled by the first character?
Any clear guidance?
It is listed as an immediate action which means it can be cast on another person's turn.
I think the damage is assumed to go directly to the paladin. The problem with immediate actions, and this came up in a WoTC thread is that some of them seem to reverse actions, and others interrupt. I would allow the paladin to decide if he wanted to cast the spell after the hit was confirmed but before the damage dice were rolled. That way he could not "roll back time".
In the case of a fear affect if the first character rolled a 1 it would be applied to the paladin, but since paladins are immune to fear it is negated so the pally is safe from running away.
So in your example the Paladin would have to venture the spell before he knew if the first character took any damage at all. The paladin might cast the spell, the first character make all his saves, and there would be no damage to transfer.
So in your example the Paladin would have to venture the spell before he knew if the first character took any damage at all. The paladin might cast the spell, the first character make all his saves, and there would be no damage to transfer.
The spell says it transfers attacks and failed saves.
My first example assumed the attack carried damage and a rider affect.
If it is just a status affect the paladin gets to transfer the affect to himself after the save is failed. The spell says when the creature fails a savings throw. I don't know if death should be transferrable, but RAW it is.
If the spell does hp damage there is no save, and the paladin just has to take it. In the event that it is an AoE and the paladin chooses to fail he may take the damage twice.
edit: After reading the spell again it seems the damage has to occur first. I don't like it from a simulationist point of view, but I don't think it is broken.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
It's really up to the GM whether the damage has to be rolled first or not, but my inclination is yes. In theory, the spell is meant to be cast just as the sword is plunging in to your friend's chest, letting you take the potentially mortal wound onto yourself instead. It absolutely is undoing harm just as it is caused, the ony reason the GM might not went to let you cast it after damage is rolled is that at that point, you'd know if you'd survive casting the spell.
Once the turn has moved on to the next creature, it'd be too late, hence the immediate casting time. And yes, some immediates are reactive, some are interrupts. I personally think it is fine to tie them both to the same mechanic.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Coming back to the original question...
1) Up to the GM. Since it's an immediate action, it can prevent a fatal blow from killing the target (they aren't quite dead when you cast it).
2) Since it's an immediate action, the paladin can cast it to transfer the fear effect to hersef just as it happens. As the paladin is immune to fear, no ill effects result from her acquiring the frightened or panicked condition. Unless she's standing near an antipaladin.
You don't recalculate saves or get a new save. You get whatever the target got, but you might be immune or resistance and take a bit less.
Note if the target is say resistant to fire and you take a fireball for them, you don't benefit from their fire resistance.
|
My general rule: You can't roll back time with anything short of a wish or miracle.
That would mean that you'd have to choose to cast this BEFORE damage was rolled (since that means it's resolving completely), but could do it after the attack was rolled (you can see it's about to hit solidly).. Same for saves.
By RAW: Attack roll or save is made first and result revealed, then you choose to cast or not, then the damage/effect comes in. Since the spell states "You are affected as if you were hit by the attack or failed the saving throw," you cannot avoid this attack or make any save against it (or rather, you are treated as automatically failing the save).
The point of the spell is to push someone out from in front of a bus at the last second, but to take the bus to the face as penalty for doing so (hence the "Sacrifice").
Personally, I don't consider this "rolling back time" because, even if damage is applied immediately, the immediate action interrupts the action.
Think of it this way: Bob the Paladin sees the enemy plunge his sword in Alice's body, before removing it. Before Alice bleeds out (it's fast, but not that fast), he reacts instantly and transfers the wound to his body. Alice hasn't had time to die from the wound, and can continue to fight.
Of course, if Bob sees Alice being decapitated, the consequence of transfering the wound will be quite severe.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sorry to raise dead on this thread but an interesting example of the use for paladin sacrifice came up last night at my gaming table.
What happens if one of the power word spells is affected by paladin sacrifice and the paladin has enough hp's to ignore the effect?
The example we discussed is having power word kill cast on a Mage with 80hps. The paladin with 150hps casts paladin sacrifice taking the effect onto himself. Is the paladin dead or does he ignore the effect as he has too many hp's for the spell to effect him?
I can see arguments either way. I'm curious to see what other people think...
I think he dies. The paladin isn't immune from death, and the fact that the paladin himself wouldn't have been a proper target for the spell doesn't stop him from suffering the effect that he transfers.
I think it's the same if a non-humanoid paladin uses this on a "dominate person" spell -- even though he wouldn't have been an appropriate target in the first place, the resulting spell effect still works on him.
I think he dies. The paladin isn't immune from death, and the fact that the paladin himself wouldn't have been a proper target for the spell doesn't stop him from suffering the effect that he transfers.
I think it's the same if a non-humanoid paladin uses this on a "dominate person" spell -- even though he wouldn't have been an appropriate target in the first place, the resulting spell effect still works on him.
I agree.
The spell states that it is the effect that are transferred to you, in this case death. It does not state that you are a new target of the spell, thus have to consider the effects anew.
I agree.
The spell states that it is the effect that are transferred to you, in this case death. It does not state that you are a new target of the spell, thus have to consider the effects anew.
I disagree. The paladin takes the effect of the spell, in this case, that includes, "Any creature that currently has 101 or more hit points is unaffected by power word kill." Since the paladin has more than 101 HP, they are unaffected.
The same as a paladin with fire immunity casting sacrifice to save the mage from a fireball spell. The order things go is:
Fireball spell is cast.
Saving throws are rolled, mage and paladin both fail.
Damage is rolled, lets say, 90 in this case, enough to drop the mage.
Paladin realizes this, casts sacrifice.
Paladin is subjected to 90 fire damage twice, but is immune, and takes 0.
The order does NOT go:
Fireball spell is cast.
Saving throws are rolled, mage and paladin both fail.
Damage is rolled, lets say, 90 in this case, enough to drop the mage.
Paladin realizes this, casts sacrifice.
Paladin is subjected to 90 fire damage, and is immune. Then subject to the 90 HP dmg the mage took from the spell.
I agree.
The spell states that it is the effect that are transferred to you, in this case death. It does not state that you are a new target of the spell, thus have to consider the effects anew.
I disagree. The paladin takes the effect of the spell, in this case, that includes, "Any creature that currently has 101 or more hit points is unaffected by power word kill." Since the paladin has more than 101 HP, they are unaffected.
The same as a paladin with fire immunity casting sacrifice to save the mage from a fireball spell. The order things go is:
Fireball spell is cast.
Saving throws are rolled, mage and paladin both fail.
Damage is rolled, lets say, 90 in this case, enough to drop the mage.
Paladin realizes this, casts sacrifice.
Paladin is subjected to 90 fire damage twice, but is immune, and takes 0.The order does NOT go:
Fireball spell is cast.
Saving throws are rolled, mage and paladin both fail.
Damage is rolled, lets say, 90 in this case, enough to drop the mage.
Paladin realizes this, casts sacrifice.
Paladin is subjected to 90 fire damage, and is immune. Then subject to the 90 HP dmg the mage took from the spell.
I can't really see how the fireball example are relevant, as the spell directly comments on immunities.
The spell states "Any resistances or immunities you have are applied normally, but you cannot otherwise reduce or negate the damage or effects in any way.".
So resistances and immunities are covered by the spell, check.
Ignoring spells because they would have affected you differently than the original target? I admit it isn't entirely, but I believe that it would fall in the category of "otherwise reduce or negate the effects", which isn't permitted by the spell.
I think there is basis for enough doubt to make it a FAQ-worthy question.
Unless it has been changed Power Word spells do not allow a safe so are not elligible for 'sacrifice' since it can be cast in response to a failed save or being hit.
I say it is quite clear that the paladin has to decide before the consequences are fully apparent, in the case of the fireball the paladin would know wether he and the mage failed the saving throw but not wether that would for sure kill either him or the mage.