According to the actual wording of the undead bloodline power, any spell that would effect a humanoid works on a corporeal undead that was once humanoid (so in essence they loose their undead immunities and can be charmed, hit with negative levels, etc.)
However, the wording makes it sound like what they were going for is just the ability to charm them with mind-altering effects and that's it.
I'm just asking, has there been any clarification about what they meant? Anything official? Or is it just ambiguous and I have to convince my GMs that it means ALL spells and not just mind-altering spells?
Because it seems weird to me that the power would make you an enchanter, but all the spells you gain from it are necromantic, but I'll admit it sounds like a mis-worded attempt to make it only apply to mind-altering spells.
Undead Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.
Based on the wording and considering the two sentences together, I would have to say that the second sentence references the first, which is specifically talking about mind-affecting spells.
Based on the wording and considering the two sentences together, I would have to say that the second sentence references the first, which is specifically talking about mind-affecting spells.
Undead Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.
See, I agree that's what it looks like it's trying to say, but the second sentence just says spells, as in all spells, not just mind-altering spells. Compare to the serpentine bloodline wording:
Your powers of compulsion can affect even bestial creatures. Whenever you cast a mind-affecting or language-dependent spell, it affects animals, magical beasts, and monstrous humanoids as if they were humanoids who understood your language.
They could have worded it like that with no confusion at all, but by saying 'spells' in the second sentence, you can make a lawyered argument that it therefore applies to all spells.
See, the problem is I have a character I want to make who story-wise should have the undead bloodline. I want him to be good at necromancy and summoning.
However, the Undead bloodline does absolutely nothing for that concept except give me some necromancy spells I could have selected anyway. I hate arguing wording like this, but if I just take the arcane bloodline the story-teller in me would scream that I'm not telling the story correctly, but taking the undead bloodline when it does nothing to help my necromancy makes the player in my scream that the character would suck at his specialities when he really doesn't have to.
Based on the wording and considering the two sentences together, I would have to say that the second sentence references the first, which is specifically talking about mind-affecting spells.
Undead Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.See, I agree that's what it looks like it's trying to say, but the second sentence just says spells, as in all spells, not just mind-altering spells. Compare to the serpentine bloodline wording:
Your powers of compulsion can affect even bestial creatures. Whenever you cast a mind-affecting or language-dependent spell, it affects animals, magical beasts, and monstrous humanoids as if they were humanoids who understood your language.
They could have worded it like that with no confusion at all, but by saying 'spells' in the second sentence, you can make a lawyered argument that it therefore applies to all spells.
See, the problem is I have a character I want to make who story-wise should have the undead bloodline. I want him to be good at necromancy and summoning.
However, the Undead bloodline does absolutely nothing for that concept except give me some necromancy spells I could have selected anyway. I hate arguing wording like this, but if I just take the arcane bloodline the story-teller in me would scream that I'm not telling the story correctly, but taking the undead bloodline when it does nothing to help my necromancy makes the player in my scream that the character would suck at his specialities when he really doesn't have to.
The wording is pretty clear to me: only mind-affecting spells - which are actually quite a lot - can now affect those undead:
- "Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells" is a general statement which on its own does not help you at all- basic undead immunities such as automatic passing of fort saves are not overridden
It's a pretty powerful ability, particularly as dips for classes like bards.
Yeah, but that still does nothing for the character who wants to be a necromancer.
Luckily I just remembered the wild-blooded variant, which gives +1 caster level when casting Necromancy spells, so I'll just go with that.
I'm not sure how having the ability to charm or dominate wights and mummies is 'doing nothing for a character that wants to be a necromancer'.
I would maintain that there is much more to being a 'necromancer' then just slinging necromancy spells around.
the bloodline makes charm and dominate spells more versatile, but it depends on what spells your sorcerer was going to take in the first place.
If you were going to spend most of your spells on summonings, energy drain spells, wall spells and party buffs, than that bloodline power has little purpose.