| Mr.Fishy |
Undead are immune to fort saves unless the effect could affect an object. It's part of the undead type.
The Pathfinder SRD has the full undead type write up if you want to look there it may answer any other questions [RAW]. DM's may still rule differently if it would improve the game or not change much.
| UltimaGabe |
quote from bestiary:page 310
"immunity to any effect that requires a fortitude save (unless the effect also works against object Or is harmless)"
1. Is the spell in question one that works against an object?
2. Is the spell in question one that says "Fortitude Negates (Harmless)?
If the answer to either of the above questions is "no", then the answer to your question is "no".
| skrahen |
Curious in general whether the harmless designation is flexible, the designation itself already let's the target creature decide if it wants to save or not. If it does want to save then obviously the spell is hostile and not harmless(at least by the targets standards). Is there a reasoning behind adding harmless to some spells and leaving it off of other equally harmless seeming spells? Enlarge person, and reduce person come to mind.
If the argument is that these spells also give a negative with the positives, the why is blood rage gives a -1 penalty to AC for each 5 damage it takes cumulative to -5 and it's considered harmless.
Any links to threads with rulings or discussions on this topic would be appreciated
Edit: my question does not relate specifically to undead but to the condition harmless in general.