RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Another thread in this forum prompted a bit of thinking on my part about the specifics of the undead type and it's relationship with a couple of well-known "killer" spells, both of which happen to be cleric spells to boot.
Undead Traits (Ex) Undead are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, phantasms, and patterns), paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). Undead are not subject to ability drain, energy drain, or nonlethal damage. Undead are immune to damage or penalties to their physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. Undead are not at risk of death from massive damage.
Note the section of the above that I have highlighted in italics. This fact is common knowledge. Undead are immune to spells like finger of death, cloudkill, and the like because, well, they aren't alive. Disintegrate, on the other hand, can vaporize creature and brick wall alike, so it gets a pass on account of the fact that undead are still things and things can be disintegrated.
However, there are a couple of spells that require Fortitude saves that are not useable on objects but, by all logical reasoning, SHOULD very well be useable against undead. Namely, destruction and implosion.
Destruction
School necromancy [death]; Level cleric 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (holy or unholy symbol costing 500 gp)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration instantaneousSaving Throw Fortitude partial; Spell Resistance yes
This spell instantly delivers 10 points of damage per caster level. If the spell slays the target, it consumes the remains utterly in holy (or unholy) fire (but not its equipment or possessions). If the target's Fortitude saving throw succeeds, it instead takes 10d6 points of damage. The only way to restore life to a character who has failed to save against this spell (and was slain) is to use true resurrection, a carefully worded wish spell followed by resurrection, or miracle.
This spell openly claims that it obliterates the target with holy (or unholy) fire! If given a list of things that I want to use to battle undead, I'm pretty sure that "holy fire" would be #1 on that list! This spell, however, is both a "death" effect AND a spell that requires a Fortitude save and isn't useable on objects... thus undead are immune.
Implosion
School evocation; Level cleric 9
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one corporeal creature/round
Duration concentration (up to 1 round per 2 levels)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yesThis spell causes a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature's body. Each round you concentrate (including the first), you can cause one creature to collapse in on itself, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level. If you break concentration, the spell immediately ends, though any implosions that have already happened remain in effect. You can target a particular creature only once with each casting of the spell. Implosion has no effect on creatures in gaseous form or on incorporeal creatures.
This spell is an evocation, thus it manipulates or creates energy which, in this case, is used to crush a target in on itself. It requires a Fortitude save and is not useable on objects, thus undead are immune. Why? Why are undead immune to being crushed? If you drop rocks on them, they take damage. If you hit them with a greatclub they take damage. Why is this any different?
Yes, I know that "game rules are not necessarily logical" and that "this is a fantasy game, it's magic, that's just how it is." But in this case... seriously? Undead can't be crushed? I think an extra line needs to be added to state that these spells can specifically ignore the usual undead immunity or, at the very least, implosion should get that treatment since it's an evocation and not a death effect. It's also a 9th-level spell, though destruction is 7th-level and no slouch either.
Good point.
Is there some reason these spells shouldn't work on objects? changing that aspect seems like a more elegant solution than shoehorning in a line about specifically ignoring undead immunity. Unless there's some abusive loophole or other reason I'm missing.
Perhaps thematically they should work, but you can always change the flavor and fluff of a spell to make it stay functionally the same though appear different. For example, though the remains are consumed in "holy fire" in Destruction, it has only the [Death], nothing about fire since it doesn't actually deal fire damage. A DM could just as easily say it causes the creature to dry up and become skeletal and turn to dust by magically aging them centuries.
Mechanically a lot of staple Fortitude save or die spells need to not affect Undead as they have a poor Fortitude saves and no Constitution score meaning that they would most assuredly fail. This means intelligent undead that are supposed to pose a credible threat such as vampires and liches suddenly are a lot easier to kill.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Good point.
Is there some reason these spells shouldn't work on objects? changing that aspect seems like a more elegant solution than shoehorning in a line about specifically ignoring undead immunity. Unless there's some abusive loophole or other reason I'm missing.
Well, destruction specifically states that it leaves the possessions and equipment behind, so that would suggest that this "divine power" is specifically only functional against a creature.
Implosion, on the other hand, I think would work on objects in principle, but assigning rules to govern it would be a little clunky. If you implode a section of rock wall, what happens? Do you get a diamond? How many cubic feet can you implode per round? Remember that implosion's duration is more than "instantaneous," and thus you could implode a great many things outside of combat with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Perhaps thematically they should work, but you can always change the flavor and fluff of a spell to make it stay functionally the same though appear different. For example, though the remains are consumed in "holy fire" in Destruction, it has only the [Death], nothing about fire since it doesn't actually deal fire damage. A DM could just as easily say it causes the creature to dry up and become skeletal and turn to dust by magically aging them centuries.
Mechanically a lot of staple Fortitude save or die spells need to not affect Undead as they have a poor Fortitude saves and no Constitution score meaning that they would most assuredly fail. This means intelligent undead that are supposed to pose a credible threat such as vampires and liches suddenly are a lot easier to kill.
I can agree with you somewhat on the point regarding destruction as it is specifically a [Death] effect. Implosion, however, is not and it performs its function by crushing the target of the spell, something that should have no consideration for the living/unliving status of its victim nor the composition of its being. Particularly as a 9th-level spell, I think implosion should bypass this restriction.
I am more concerned with what the fortitude save represents, what does clunky the fighter do when he makes his fortitude save, I sometimes have a really hard time imagening what a succesful fortitude save represents.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I am more concerned with what the fortitude save represents, what does clunky the fighter do when he makes his fortitude save, I sometimes have a really hard time imagening what a succesful fortitude save represents.
With implosion? Imagine it as an invisible hand trying to crush him. He flexes every muscle in his body, veins pop out in his forehead, and he holds out against the force long enough to survive.
With destruction I suspect it's more like a burning sensation coming from within that the character has to swallow hard and focus on in order to keep it from bursting forth, kinda like how you would resist the urge to vomit when ill. Except failure in this case means 'burst into white flames and die' instead of 'puke on the carpet.'
I think that Destruction rides down the positive energy that resides in living creatures and then... basically drops some mentos into the diet pepsi of the life-force.
Undead have no positive life-force... so no burny-burny.
As for implosion. Well, it specifically affects any corporeal target, so I think maybe it was mis-filed. Either that, or the undead just takes a big breath and pops his ribs back into place and continues staggering toward you?
I'd rule that implosion is perfectly capable of splattering a vampire into goo.
I have to agree. The holy fire, and crushing damage, don't make any sense.
*sigh*
Like the crushing hand spell you can make it a grapple check against any undead or construct that cannot make fort saves. The intent may have been to weaken/balance the spell by having it work only against living things. As GM the choice is yours.
lovely necro.
more to the point. i would house rule to have destruction effect corporeal undead since it say :
"it consumes the remains utterly in holy (or unholy) fire" which mean it does effect objects. specifically the corpse which most undead have\are.
as for implosion that one is a bit trickier, but you can still house rule it in by saying that since it target the "creatures' body" ("This spell causes a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature's body") it can be seen be more like a spell that target a creature's gear. the gear get's the owner's save, but it can be targeted even if the creature itself might be immune to said effect. like using shatter on a hoy symbol.
-again before every1 jump at me. this is house ruling in spells that seem like they should effect undead but by raw don't.
Destruction only consumes the remains of a target that is killed. Since an undead creature or construct are not alive, they cannot be killed. The spell also lacks the fire descriptor which means the damage is not fire (Holy or otherwise). This indicates that the (un)holy fire takes place after the damage is done. It also means that it will affect a creature that is immune to fire.
Implosion does it damage by creating a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature. Maybe the resonance does not affect the negative energy that animates an undead creature.
When I homebrew the symbolic resonance spell, I will specify either fort or reflex save, as the target can jump for cover to disrupt the spell.
As I said, the GM is the final judge of whether corporeal or fort save is given more weight.
I find those spells' damage output too swingy anyway. If they work, they take away like 60% of a serious opponent's HP. With a standard action. From a safe distance - "close" becomes pretty far at level 13+.
If they don't, they are negated completely or reduced to a small fraction of the damage (destruction does only ~1/4 on a successful save, and it gets worse with higher CL).
Two campaigns ago I banned both, which coincidentally solved the issue here. By now I'd modify them to be more in line with other spells and, yes, to affect undead.