Last game a player used the spell wandering star motes
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/wanderingStarMotes.html
The spell affected a barbarian, the after 2 rounds he saved and the spell "bounced" to the nearest enemy, but he was an undead.
Now, my questio is: how can I handle this? I decided that the spell bounced on the undead for 1 round, then since he can't be affected the spell bounced again as it would have made the save.
Any suggestion, or clarification from the staff please?
Thank
The spell targets living creatures and so can't jump to an invalid target like an undead. It should never have jumped to that creature.
Sry I missed "one living creature" :)
But, let's assume that a living creature can't be dazed. What happens?
The spell targets living creatures and so can't jump to an invalid target like an undead.
Ehhh, maybe.
"Target one living creature and special; see text"
It could be reasoned that the target is the creature you cast it on, which must be a living creature. After that, it's special see text. The text says "If a target makes its Will save, the wandering star motes jump to the nearest enemy within 30 feet..."
It does go on to say Target after that, in regards to save. So probably the nearest enemy should also be a valid target, but it's not clear.
I would probably run it as Alec did. If a creature is immune for whatever reason, treat it as a successful save and jump.
Actually, no, now that I think about it, I wouldn't have it waste rounds jumping on undead if there's a valid living target within range, I would have it skip directly to the nearest living enemy. So no jumping on undead, but it would still jump to a living creature that is immune to daze, and then I would treat that creature as making the save rather than suspending the spell until it fades due to the creature never making a save in the first place.
Though, now that I think about it, if you're immune to the effect, does that mean you never even attempt the save? Or do you still technically need to make the save though you generally don't care if you fail? This could have importance in the event of an effect like "bonus on your next saving throw" getting used up.
I must have had waffles for breakfast.
But, let's assume that a living creature can't be dazed. What happens?
If the target is immune to mind affecting affects, they are not a valid target either.
If they are just immune to Dazing, then the mote would jump to them and they'd roll the save. If they failed, they'd be immune to the Daze and they'd continue making saves every round as normal until they succeed and the mote jumps to someone else.
Edit: It's probably in that guy's best interest to voluntarily fail his saves (I just learned you could do that a few weeks ago!) to keep the effect on him and off his allies.
The spell targets living creatures and so can't jump to an invalid target like an undead.Ehhh, maybe.
"Target one living creature and special; see text"
I thought the same thing and had a much longer post about the two possible interpretations, and then I saw the Motes are a Mind Affecting affect, so undead are immune and thus an invalid target regardless of the target line.
As far as the "immune" thing, I believe if you are immune to the keywords in the spell, you're an invalid target, but if you're just immune to a condition or damage inflicted by the spell (like fire damage or Dazing), you are still targetted and make all the normal saves and the condition/damage just doesn't affect you.
I would treat a creature that was immune to daze as automatically making its save, and the star would jump away.
Thanks guys. I think I'll do this way, immunity give automatic save for purpose of this spell. Reading rules it should remain on the target (that would fail his save) but I prefer to don't frustrate the caster :)
If the target is immune to mind affecting affects, they are not a valid target either.
That's not true, is it? The spell wouldn't work, but they're still a valid target.
If you haven't identified a foe as, for example, a zombie, and you cast Hideous Laughter, you still burn the spell, it just has no effect. (IE: valid Target, but immune)
So a creature that is living, yet immune to mind-affecting, is still a valid target for Star Motes, it just has no effect.
The question is if a creature that is immune to something still has to roll saves.
That's not true, is it? The spell wouldn't work, but they're still a valid target.
Hmm. I don't know, I always handled it that way, but I can't find any Immunity entry/definition anywhere to confirm or deny.
If you haven't identified a foe as, for example, a zombie, and you cast Hideous Laughter, you still burn the spell, it just has no effect. (IE: valid Target, but immune)
See, I would see you as also burning the spell, but because you had no valid target, not because the target was unaffected.
So a creature that is living, yet immune to mind-affecting, is still a valid target for Star Motes, it just has no effect.
I could accept that, but I think it's unclear.
The question is if a creature that is immune to something still has to roll saves.
I don't see why it wouldn't. The saves happen before the effect--they determine the effect, in fact.
You can't discount the possibility of a spell whereby someone might be immune to the condition inflicted on a failed save, but not by the condition inflicted on a successful one (or vice versa).
If you haven't identified a foe as, for example, a zombie, and you cast Hideous Laughter, you still burn the spell, it just has no effect. (IE: valid Target, but immune)
I've always seen that as burning your action, but the spell was never actually cast due to lack of a valid target.
Even if they can't be dazed, the spell still will negate concealment and illuminate them like a sunrod. They might be immune to the primary effect of the spell, but it still does things to them. If someone is immune to daze, but still a legal target, they should still make the save every round. The only time it shouldn't land is on illegal targets (non-living targets, allies)
Seems so.