| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Immunity is immunity and can't be turned off.
The barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 2 x his class level + 2, but won't gain the morale bonuses, and won't be fatigued afterwards.
I know in 3.5 immunities could be turned off for the sake of benefit. I can't find it in the PF rulebook at the moment.
Um... spell resistance could be supress... but I'm pretty sure an undead could never turn off it's immunity to mind affecting spells, critical hits, or anything else for that matter.
A paladin can't turn off his immunity to fear just because he might like to be afraid, or his immunity to disease just because he might like to get werebear lycanthropy.
I can't find anywhere in 3.5 where it suggests that someone could decide to *not* apply their immunities.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
but is the Rage ITSELF (with it`s attendant rage powers) considered a Morale effect, not just the STAT / Save boosts?
but is the Rage ITSELF (with it`s attendant rage powers) considered a Morale effect, not just the STAT / Save boosts?
It doesn't say that raging is a morale effect, just the stat and save boosts are. So I would go with you can rage, you won't get the boosts, but you can use the rage powers. The AC penalty isn't a morale penalty either so I think that would stick too.
not quite, there`s quite a few nice rage powers that only work while raging...
the stat/save boosts are classed as morale bonuses (which is a morale effect),
the rest of range isn`t going to be called a morale bonus, but it certainly seems like a morale effect in flavor and everything... the rules just don`t seem to say one way or the other.
i don`t know if the fact that calm emotions negates rage (i.e. that it is subject to emotions, i.e. morale) might lend anything to the idea that rage itself is a morale effect.
anyways, i think the idea of undead or vampire barbarians is cool, so it should be able to be done SOMEHOW. with their zero CON they get less rage rounds anyways (if they can rage). if it`s decided that it doesn`t work, maybe have an undead only barbarian PrC that lets them use rage powers all the time without raging (maybe just no once per rage powers, which are some of the better ones).
clearly undead are immune to morale effects is that the same thing as a morale bonus that rage gives ? if they dont get the HP or STR bonus then it is as i suggest there is no real benefit to raging anymore
A morale bonus is an effect right? It's morale and has an effect on the character so I would say it has an effect and therefore is an effect and therefore immunity morale effects means that it can't affect the vampire.
Again raging would still allow use of rage powers which can be a big thing, and if the vampire in question was an invulnerable rager then raging would grant him DR (1/2 barbarian level)/- for example.
|
clearly undead are immune to morale effects is that the same thing as a morale bonus that rage gives ? if they dont get the HP or STR bonus then it is as i suggest there is no real benefit to raging anymore
Um... While it is correct that the Undead Type is immune to morale effects (and thus the benefits of Rage, I see one of the vampire's abilities are being overlooked.
Per PRGB page 271 - "Change Shape (Su): A vampire can use change shape to assume the form of a dire bat or wolf, as beast shape II.
Per PRGCR page 247 Beast Shape II - "This spell functions as beast shape I, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Tiny or Large creature of the animal type."
Note: This establishes that our barbarian vampire is assuming the form... of the animal type.
Per PRGCR page 212 - "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body."
Note: This further establishes that our barbarian vampire is changing into the animal type.
But really what am I getting at?
Per PRGCR page 247 Beast Shape II is "Transmutation (polymorph)."
Per PRGCR page 212 - "While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter..."
Note: This establishes that our barbarian vampire is losing all his extraordinary and supernatural abilities granted from his vampire form.
Per PRGB page 310 - "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms."
Per PRGB page 301 - "Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect."
So in summary: there is logical argument for our barbarian vampire to turn into an obscenely powerful dire bat or wolf that can rage. While it would take a little bit of work on the GM's part, the role playing aspect of this could be huge.
Just my two cents.
stuffs on a supposed loophole
The immunity to mind affecting abilities isn't form based however, it is type based. Changing form doesn't change type, therefore doesn't remove the immunity to morale effects.
|
I know in 3.5 immunities could be turned off for the sake of benefit. I can't find it in the PF rulebook at the moment.Um... spell resistance could be supress... but I'm pretty sure an undead could never turn off it's immunity to mind affecting spells, critical hits, or anything else for that matter.
I believe you are correct. My mistake. I got my terminology confused.
I believe you are correct. My mistake. I got my terminology confused.I know in 3.5 immunities could be turned off for the sake of benefit. I can't find it in the PF rulebook at the moment.Um... spell resistance could be supress... but I'm pretty sure an undead could never turn off it's immunity to mind affecting spells, critical hits, or anything else for that matter.
No biggie -- happens to everyone every now and then.
I'm pretty sure, with undead, anything that affects Con or is affected by Con works off of Cha instead. Thus a raging vampire would gain +4 str and cha. Morale effects are things that affect the emotional state of the undead, which non-intelligent undead would be immune to, but there are things that affect intelligent undead on a mostly case by case situation. Ergo, vampire barbarians are perfectly feasible if the PM (Path Master) allows it.
Just my 2 cents.
Let's ignore the semantics for a moment. As undead, they don't have a constitution score, but they usually use charisma instead.
A barbarian gets a bonus to constitution.
That leads us to a pertinent question: Will vampire barbarians get prettier when they rage?
I've seen my share of women who became a lot more attractive when they were angry. Maybe they were all vampire barbarians.
I think that is important to remember when you next feel inclined to tell an angry-hot women to "bite me!"
Has anyone determined if rage powers and the ability to rage is itself a morale effect ? perhaps we could get an official ruling on this one as I have yet to see anyone post a definitive answer
Again Rage is not a morale effect. It is not listed as such. Some of the bonuses it gives are listed as morale effects, but rage is not.
Proof of concept:
Why list the individual bonuses as morale bonuses if the entire thing is a morale effect?
IF the whole was a morale effect then every part of it would be and you wouldn't need to clarify which parts are and are not.
Since it clarifies that certain parts are morale effects, it stands to reason that not every part of the whole is.
|
|
The immunity to mind affecting abilities isn't form based however, it is type based. Changing form doesn't change type, therefore doesn't remove the immunity to morale effects.
I actually put two different arguments in my previous post. I think the one you are arguing against is repeated and expanded upon below.
Per PRGCR page 247 Beast Shape II - "This spell functions as beast shape I, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Tiny or Large creature of the animal type."
Per PRGCR page 212 - "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body."
While I certainly appreciate your argument, the rules
I've read don't seem to support it.
Let me make it a little clearer: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal... type, all of your gear melds into your body." If polymorph did not change your type, why include this line and the paragraph it's in.
And in case someone starts thinking it adds a type, per PRGB page 306 Creature Types - "Each creature has one type, broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes, as described on pages 310-314."
|
|
Let me make it a little clearer: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal... type, all of your gear melds into your body." If polymorph did not change your type, why include this line and the paragraph it's in.
The way I read that is the discription is giving you the "type" of creature you can turn into not that you actually become that "type".
"When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type."
You then gain some extra abilities depending on the Beast Shape spell. The RAW doesn't meantion changing Type by assuming the form.
2 cents,
S.
The immunity to mind affecting abilities isn't form based however, it is type based. Changing form doesn't change type, therefore doesn't remove the immunity to morale effects.I actually put two different arguments in my previous post. I think the one you are arguing against is repeated and expanded upon below.
Per PRGCR page 247 Beast Shape II - "This spell functions as beast shape I, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Tiny or Large creature of the animal type."
Per PRGCR page 212 - "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body."
While I certainly appreciate your argument, the rules
I've read don't seem to support it.Let me make it a little clearer: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal... type, all of your gear melds into your body." If polymorph did not change your type, why include this line and the paragraph it's in.
And in case someone starts thinking it adds a type, per PRGB page 306 Creature Types - "Each creature has one type, broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes, as described on pages 310-314."
From the PRD
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +20 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature.Why would you have to disguise yourself as something you already are?
I saw your sentence. It is worded badly. It should have continued by saying:
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes your form into a creature of the animal... type.
|
|
From the PRD
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +20 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature.
And reading the other 7 paragraphs clarifies this, which is why I previously included my second argument, as repeated and expanded below:
Per PRGCR page 247 Beast Shape II is "Transmutation (polymorph)."
Per PRGCR page 212 - "While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter..."
Note: This establishes that our barbarian vampire is losing all his extraordinary and supernatural abilities granted from his vampire form.
Per PRGB page 310 - "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms."
Per PRGB page 301 - "Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect."
And for those that say you don't lose abilities granted by Type, please look at Darkvision, which is granted by Type.
From the PRD
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +20 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature.And reading the other 7 paragraphs clarifies this, which is why I previously included my second argument, as repeated and expanded below:
Per PRGCR page 247 Beast Shape II is "Transmutation (polymorph)."
Per PRGCR page 212 - "While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision),
Note: This establishes that our barbarian vampire is losing all his extraordinary and supernatural abilities granted from his vampire form.
You are misinterpreting. Not all Ex and Su abilities are form based. Some are typed based. One thing that would not be lost is the immunity to mind-affecting things, as an example. He is still undead regardless of what form he is in.
To make it more clear, as another example, if you are a morgh and you are polymorphed you still keep all your undead things, but the paralyzing tongue which is specific to the morgh would be lost since the tongue is based on the morgh's form and not it's type.A dragon's breath weapon would be lost if it polymorphed to a human since it is the dragon's form, and not type that grants it. You have to consider the ability and form to determine what is lost, which is why instead of trying to create blanket rules, they said it is up to the GM.
|
|
You are misinterpreting. Not all Ex and Su abilities are form based. Some are typed based. One thing that would not be lost is the immunity to mind-affecting things, as an example. He is still undead regardless of what form he is in.
To make it more clear, as another example, if you are a morgh and you are polymorphed you still keep all your undead things, but the paralyzing tongue which is specific to the morgh would be lost since the tongue is based on the morgh's form and not it's type.
A dragon's breath weapon would be lost if it polymorphed to a human since it is the dragon's form, and not type that grants it. You have to consider the ability and form to determine what is lost, which is why instead of trying to create blanket rules, they said it is up to the GM.
I believe you are stating something along the lines 'Polymorph cares where the extraordinary and supernatural abilities come from.'
I have found no text in the PRGCR or PRGB that supports your opinion. About the best I've come up with is: Per PRGCR page 212 - "While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter..." However since it clearly says, 'that depend upon form' it doesn't help your argument.
I have found no text in the PRGCR or PRGB your first two examples.
Your third example is supported by my interpretation as well as yours.
Where in the PRGCR or PRGB does it say I have to consider the source of the extraordinary and supernatural abilities? Where does it say 'If the extraordinary and supernatural ability is granted by Type, it is retained.'?
I've posted quotes and references used in my interpretation, could you please quote and reference the materials you are basing your opinion on?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Mindless / immune to mind-affecting / morale effects qualities are misused in 3.X and PF anyway, IMO.
Just make anything that clearly has a mind and emotions, such as a vampire or ghoul, *not* immune to mind-affecting effects, and it's all good. If it's a mindless plant, undead, etc., fine, but if it's a vampire or treant, and clearly has thoughts and feelings, then it should be able to both benefit from morale bonuses and be afflicted with the appropriate penalties.
Having creatures that clearly have hopes and dreams and fears, ethics and morals (as represented by an alignment score), be arbitrarily immune to an entire school of magic, and various other effects, just because it has the Undead or Plant type is silly, IMO.
D&D veered in one direction (vampires have no emotions or capacity for sentient thought) and VtM veered in the other direction (vampires are *more* ruled by fear and anger than mortals). Using something in the middle seems both more balanced for play (and doesn't hose Enchantment specialists, Bards, etc.) and more nuanced, allowing for treants, vampires, etc. who have distinctive personalities, and who can be influenced by mundane skills (like intimidate), bardic performance or magical effects.
Using creature Type as a straightjacket (all X are Y, no exceptions!), and not a guideline, has led to an assortment of silly rules like this, IMO.
Since it's pretty solidly part of the vampire 'genre' that they can have feelings, fall in love, get angry, become sad, succumb to despair, go on rampages, be scared of holy symbols, etc. the immunity to mind-affecting effects / morale bonuses, while it might make sense for an animated N bag of bones incapable of malice, thought or feeling, makes no sense for any D&D vampire I've seen, or even for the malicious moral-choice-capable 'quasi-sentient' skeletons and zombies of 3.5 and PF.
If it can 'hate life,' it can be scared (or angry, or inspired). Can't have one without the other.