Why is this so important to you as a GM? Do your dead always get raised so fast? You don't bother tracking status effects on a corpse, and most resurrection magic does have a significant healing component with it. as it tends to fix that which killed you.
FAQ if you like, but keep in mind the staff gets pretty bogged down with the FAQ list and generally don't bother answering them if it's something they feel a GM should work out for him or herself.
Submitting a topic for FAQ is much like trying to send a case to the Supreme Court. Not all of them get heard.
Breath of Life. That is all.
A creature that dies or is petrified becomes an object, so I surmise that any spell with the target "one creature" rather than "one creature or object" will stop working, just as if you had cast it on an invalid target.
Except that spells like Raise Dead or Resurrection don't target objects, they target 'dead creatures'. Also, you don't worry about hardness or the 'broken' condition with corpses, which is what a large portion of the rules about objects is about. Clearly, dead things should still be considered creatures, even when disintegrated into a pile of dust or whatever.
Oh, I disagree. I'd probably say 'dead creature' is a subclass of 'object,' because I certainly don't want to see what freakish rules loopholes will open if we start classifying the dead as still being 'creatures'. Just for starters, no spell that affects 'the closest creatures' would work the same while casting from atop a pile of corpses!
By your own earlier example, though, that absolutely screws anyone who gets petrified. Stone to Flesh is targeted at either a petrified creature or a cylinder of stone. If the 'object' (as it's now classified) was under the effects of an Enlarge Person spell, that just doesn't work anymore. Also, the only spell I can think of that would fall under your hypothetical loophole of 'the closest creatures' is Circle of Death...and that only affects the living.
You have to keep objects and creatures separate, there's just too much potential for things to get really messed up otherwise. Besides, what's so wrong with buff spells ticking down on a corpse, anyways? "Oh look, the party's wizard is dead. Too bad that displacement that's still running didn't save his butt from the Wail of the Banshee that hit him. Oh well."
Spells do not end unless their durations expire or they are specifically stopped by effects like dispel magic, or casting another spell while concentrating on a first spell.
Crossing through a portal to another plane does not end spell durations. Moving out of line of sight from the person who cast bull's strength on you doesn't end its duration. Even a concentration based spell would not end upon a line of sight shift, as that is an aspect of targeting, not duration.
Becoming a target who can not benefit from the spell does not mean the spell ceases. A creature in an antimagic field can not benefit from spells running on it, but the spells do not end, they are merely suppressed until the field is exited.
The dead wizard still has mage armor running, and it still protects him, giving him a whopping AC of 5 (-5 for dex 0, +4 for mage -4 for prone) against further melee attacks. Does this likely matter? Probably not, but it might. The dead wizard with iron body running still weighs 8 times as much as normal. That might matter if a creature is trying to drag him away to feast upon. Does the wizard's cat's grace spell matter? No. But it is still running.
This also works for caster's of spells. Nobody likes it, but a vampire's dominate doesn't go away until the next day when the slain vampire becomes unable to concentrate on it for one round, as per the Dominate spell. Your fighter is likely going to be a Renfield until the next dawn, and if his last order was "destroy them!" you may have to beat him unconcious.
Basically, say the cleric has Communal Resist Energy, Death Ward, Nine Lives, and Heroes' Feast cast on herself. Then she dies. (Actually dead, not unconscious.) Do those spells go away, or do they return if she is brought back to life?
The vast majority of spells are fire and forget. Once they are legally placed on a/an object/person/creature/place/whatever they run their durations.
If you put Bulls Strength on your fighter and it is going to last 15 rounds and the fighter is killed in round 4, the Bull's Strength spell still runs another 11 rounds. It does not care that the fighter is dead. It still is magically making his body stronger wether the fighter can use it or not.
Spells that have a concentration requirement will end when the caster dies (unless they also have extra rounds after concentration ceases as some do) but will continue on if a valid target of the spell dies but the caster still concentrates.
Permanent spells are that, permanent. If a Sorcerer has See Invisibility permanencied on themselves and they die. The spell is still there. The sorcerer cannot make use of it since they are dead but the spell is still there. Should it take their party two years to ressurect that Sorcerer, when they are they will still have the See Invisibily permanent spell on them.
To answer your original question, spells will continue to exist and use up rounds of duration while the character is dead and will still have any appropriate amount of duration left, if any, when that character is revived, whatever the method of revival.
I think people have too narrow a concept of categories. An Apple is a Fruit and a Red Object and an Apple. It would be affected by spells that targeted any of those things. It might also be Plant Matter, a Seed (more or less), and possibly Living. An Orange gets some of those, but not "Red Objects" or "Apples". A Fire Truck gets Red Object, but not Fruit or Seed or Apple or Living. And so on. Any possible target may belong to more than one category at a time. Sometimes things transition from one category to another. Living Creatures are Creatures, but not Objects. Dead Creatures are both Creatures and Objects.
Except that spells like Raise Dead or Resurrection don't target objects, they target 'dead creatures'. Also, you don't worry about hardness or the 'broken' condition with corpses, which is what a large portion of the rules about objects is about. Clearly, dead things should still be considered creatures, even when disintegrated into a pile of dust or whatever.
Spells like "Stone to Flesh" target chunks of stone. Are those not objects? If a spell targets a generic Object, and is used on a Dead Body, it works (and note that Mending specifically excludes creatures, including Construct Creatures (which are objects and Creatures as well), but Make Whole does not). There's no reason for it not to do so. It's just some decayed matter. Otherwise you have a lot of problems when you're looking at, say, a wooden structure (it's a dead plant) or anything made of bone. In addition, PF doesn't contradict, so if you go by the old 3.5 ruling... The last 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons FAQ that was released by Wizards of the Coast stated that a dead body is treated as an object, and thus it can be damaged using the rules for “Smashing an Object”.
So... Dead Creatures are objects. They may also be a sub-class of Creature (when a target doesn't specify "Living Creature" I don't see why you couldn't target a Dead one). Many spells (e.g. Sleep) specify "Living Creature", specifically making them exempt.
That doesn't make any sense, though. How can they continue to function when the target is invalid?
Luckily, they aren't necessarily invalid targets. Enlarge Person, for example, targets a humanoid creature. It doesn't specify living or dead, so it can apply to both. It would definitely persist. In fact, almost all of the buffs are "Creature Touched" or "Personal", which continues to be a valid target whether alive or dead. It would just be unusual to cast on a dead target, but not against the rules. Check each of the spells in question -- if it becomes an invalid target, I'd consider removing the effect, but lots of effects (even Flesh to Stone) don't seem to remove previous target types. For example, Flesh to Stone doesn't remove "creature" or "Living" as possible states for it -- the Live/Dead status is ambiguous at best (but the soul is likely still tied there if you're in a Planar campaign, and Speak to Dead or Resurrection wouldn't work), and it still seems to be considered a mindless creature made of inert stone.
If you had a spell that required intelligence (or couldn't target something that was mindless), and the target was rendered mindless (an actual case of something becoming an invalid target), I don't see anything clearly in the rules for that. The GM would need to make a call as to whether an invalid target suppresses an effect, or dispels the effect. I'd go with suppress personally, but as long as it was handled consistently, I could see arguments for either side being valid at the moment.
I see no reason why the spells wouldn't continue until their duration expires.
I think people have too narrow a concept of categories.
Quite the contrary: your proposal may sound sensible and elegant, but this is a rules oriented game which proposes VERY different ways of handling damage, a core combat mechanic, to the different types of targets, creature vs object. For one, objects never have damage reduction, they have hardness. Also, creatures cannot have the 'broken' condition, but they can have a whole wealth of other conditions objects are immune to. Objects never make saving throws unless held by something, but that's okay because of said immunities and the fact that ranged attacks and most energy types only do half damage to them. Attempting to put something under BOTH categories opens up a proverbial can of worms by making it necessary to start including more and more specific exceptions to longstanding rules.
Spells like "Stone to Flesh" target chunks of stone. Are those not objects?
Incorrect, it's more detailed than that. Read the target portion of Stone to Flesh. The spell specifically targets one petrified creature OR one column of stone up to 3 feet wide and up to 10 feet tall. Hence, my example of how a petrified fighter that was under an Enlarge Person effect couldn't be turned back by the spell that is specifically designed to reverse the petrified condition, should dead creatures strictly be considered objects. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but these fine details can be the difference between a monster or PC dying in a fight, something the players either very much want to see or DO NOT want to see.
If a spell targets a generic Object, and is used on a Dead Body, it works (and note that Mending specifically excludes creatures, including Construct Creatures (which are objects and Creatures as well), but Make Whole does not). There's no reason for it not to do so. It's just some decayed matter. Otherwise you have a lot of problems when you're looking at, say, a wooden structure (it's a dead plant) or anything made of bone.
Your example of a spell that targets generic objects being used on a dead creature is an odd one, I'd have to know what spell you're talking about here. I'm ASSUMING you mean something like Disintegrate, which has no 'Target' descriptor, it merely requires an attack roll be made. The application of the effect for the spell is then listed out separately for both the creature and object types.
I'm not sure why you used Mending as an example, if anything it weakens your case. The fact that they feel it necessary to point out that it doesn't work on living beings, or even beings that are of the construct type, should be a giant neon flashing arrow pointing to the words, "Dead != Object".In addition, PF doesn't contradict, so if you go by the old 3.5 ruling... The last 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons FAQ that was released by Wizards of the Coast stated that a dead body is treated as an object, and thus it can be damaged using the rules for “Smashing an Object”.
I'm sorry, there are far too many differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder for me to take that and say it's automatically correct here. An FAQ to 3.5 is not automatically an FAQ to this system. Core mechanics, such as the fact that undead, constructs, and plants can now be dealt sneak damage, have been turned on their head in the changeover. There's a lot of overlap but until this comes officially from Paizo, not a 3rd party compiled SRD, there's nothing stating a players newly dead corpse is, by the rules, considered an object.
A spell has to TARGET a creature, yes. Does anything say that the spell's victim has to remain a valid target after the spell takes effect?
|
A dead creature is still a creature...
We use skeletons and undead creatures all the time right? Are they dead? Are they creatures? Do they have souls?
The fundamental difference between a dead creature and a live one is the presence of a soul (in most cases, outsiders are a bit different). The soul gets blood flowing, lungs moving etc... If a creature has no soul can it have magic effecting it?
Can skeletons have buffs placed apon them?
I think creatures that die with magical effects placed apon them keep those magical effects until the magical effects expire.
As for comparing Pathfinder to other games... There's nothing wrong with pathfinder being unique.
Hope that helps out a bit.
|
|
But your DM, your call, we don't need official rulings to dictate what we DM do. It is YOUR world that they are living in, when creatures die in YOUR world, what is the nature of their soulless bodies?
My players value creativity more than actual rulings when it comes to odd-ball situations like this. But, it's up to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spell has to TARGET a creature, yes. Does anything say that the spell's victim has to remain a valid target after the spell takes effect?
Not really. Let's think about this.
If I cast a spell such as animal shapes that targets "one willing creature" and someone else uses Diplomacy to change my friend's mind, should they be able to just shrug off my spell?
What about spells such as haste which says that no two targets may be more than 30ft apart. Can they thereafter move further apart without invalidating the spell?
If we want to be really pedantic, there are tonnes of spells that target "one creature touched". Well, once my hand comes off that creature is no longer touched so the spell has to drop right?
What about contingency? Can we set a condition for something useful to happen in even that we die or do we lose this spell simply because once we are dead we are no longer ourselves but rather some dead object?
The creature was touched, the creature was willing, we were ourselves, and the creatures were within 30ft of one another. The spells all stay running despite their original conditions no longer being accurate.
I have no difficulty with a dead mage remaining invisible as his corpse tumbles to the ground. I have no difficulty with a warrior who had bear's endurance cast on him during the fight maintaining a nice high Con score so breath of life doesn't have to work that much harder to bring him back. Spells that make any sense remain functional and spells that don't are suppressed while they are invalid but their durations continue to erode.
One thing that is pretty consistent in D&D when it comes to magic: all spell durations aren't dismissible unless stated so in the spell description. Spells are mostly "fire and forget", and therefore won't stop simply because the target dies.
Yes, that dead wizard still has his Mage Armor active, not that it will do him/her much good. Just because a cleric casts a communal spell, doesn't mean it stays linked to the cleric. That fog cloud still stays around even if the caster gets killed. Etc.
Quite the contrary: your proposal may sound sensible and elegant, but this is a rules oriented game which proposes VERY different ways of handling damage, a core combat mechanic, to the different types of targets, creature vs object. For one, objects never have damage reduction, they have hardness. Also, creatures cannot have the 'broken' condition, but they can have a whole wealth of other conditions objects are immune to. Objects never make saving throws unless held by something, but that's okay because of said immunities and the fact that ranged attacks and most energy types only do half damage to them. Attempting to put something under BOTH categories opens up a proverbial can of worms by making it necessary to start including more and more specific exceptions to longstanding rules.
That's a lie -- Constructs are Objects and Creatures, they have Hardness and Damage Reduction. Dead Creatures could certainly have hardness -- what's the hardness of meat and bone? Both of those are "objects"... and also parts of a former creature. If I went to a Butcher Shop and grabbed a generic chunk of meat and cast Resurrection on it, it becomes a creature. But... that spell targets a "Dead Creature" -- it can't do that unless that is actually a "Creature". Are you going to say that chunk of meat doesn't have hardness and wouldn't be treated like an object, because it is a Creature as well? How about a Door made out of a Treant? Object or Dead Creature? It's both. Spells that affect Objects or Doors work. You use the Break DC and Hardness rules if you attack it. But spells that target a Dead Creature work as well. And if it doesn't specify Living Creature or Dead Creature, just "Creature" or "Creature Touched"? The spell technically works -- it may have limited to no effect, but it's a valid target.
Your example of a spell that targets generic objects being used on a dead creature is an odd one, I'd have to know what spell you're talking about here. I'm ASSUMING you mean something like Disintegrate, which has no 'Target' descriptor, it merely requires an attack roll be made. The application of the effect for the spell is then listed out separately for both the creature and object types.
You missed the second Example: Make Whole. It's in the part you quoted, even. It targets an object, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't work on a dead body to reassemble a decapitated and hacked-apart corpse if you had all the parts. Now I'll add the flip side of Resurrection, cast on a bone. Both Object and Creature spells work on the same thing. So what is it? It's both.