Death and your active spells.

[Wilimac]

I might be confused but death and active buff spells. Do all active spells that are on you (I.e shield of faith, telepathic bond, bless) end once you are considered dead. I know that a dead body is considered an object after death but wouldn't the spell duration continue on til they end?

And what would happen to active spells right before your an target of a Breath of life when your considered dead?

Sorry if this looks weird typing during a session on a tablet.

[Zhayne]

This has been debated in another thread recently, and I don't believe a consensus was ever reached.

My ruling would be that they would remain until the duration expired; the spell only requires a 'legal target' when cast, not persistently through its duration.

[wraithstrike]

I think they go away.

I don't see it as you have to be a legal target at casting. I see it as you have to a legal target to be affected, so at any time you are not longer a legal target the spell ceases to affect you.

I will see if I can find something more concrete however.

[Zhayne]

The only relevant quote I can find is:

Subjects, Effects, and Areas

If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration.

[Jokem]

Wilimac wrote:

I might be confused but death and active buff spells. Do all active spells that are on you (I.e shield of faith, telepathic bond, bless) end once you are considered dead. I know that a dead body is considered an object after death but wouldn't the spell duration continue on til they end?

And what would happen to active spells right before your an target of a Breath of life when your considered dead?

Sorry if this looks weird typing during a session on a tablet.

This question about Breath of Life is a good one. If Bears Endurance is running on a target and they get taken down past the Constitution score, there would be two issues.

1) Does Bears Endurance count toward the Constitution score for purposes of determining if a character has negative hit points less than the Con after Breath of Life has been cast?

2) Are the extra hit points bestowed by Bears Endurance still in effect and enough to bring the character up to the point where still alive?

I have to say yes in that since a Belt of Mighty Constitution is nothing more than an eternal Bears Endurance, right? So unless that turns off when a character passes the Con value then the con value and extra hits still are in effect.

[wraithstrike]

I can't find anything from a dev, but 3.5 allowed it by the FAQ. I know 3.5 is not PF, but that is the best I could find.

[Hendelbolaf]

The question is do you remain a creature once dead, albeit a dead one, or do you become an object?

Breath of Life has a target of "creature touched" which seems to imply that you are still a creature as you can be dead and the spell can still be effective.

Raise Dead has a target of "dead creature touched" so it has to be used on a dead creature, whereas Breath of Life could still be used to heal a living creature, and it implies that even dead, you are still a creature. Reincarnate is the same and Resurrection and True Resurrection are like Raise Dead, so they all point to a dead person as being a creature.

If that is they case, then I would rule that the spells remain in affect until their normal duration expires. In the big picture if you die that is punishment enough with the various penalties that will come with it. Since there is no rule that says they go away and since it seems that they remain a creature, I would rule the spell effects to still be in effect once dead.

Unless there is an official ruling that comes down in opposition to this line of reasoning, it seems that this would be the RAW or not written as the case may be for this issue.

[wraithstrike]

Hendelbolaf wrote:

The question is do you remain a creature once dead, albeit a dead one, or do you become an object?

Breath of Life has a target of "creature touched" which seems to imply that you are still a creature as you can be dead and the spell can still be effective.

Raise Dead has a target of "dead creature touched" so it has to be used on a dead creature, whereas Breath of Life could still be used to heal a living creature, and it implies that even dead, you are still a creature. Reincarnate is the same and Resurrection and True Resurrection are like Raise Dead, so they all point to a dead person as being a creature.

If that is they case, then I would rule that the spells remain in affect until their normal duration expires. In the big picture if you die that is punishment enough with the various penalties that will come with it. Since there is no rule that says they go away and since it seems that they remain a creature, I would rule the spell effects to still be in effect once dead.

Unless there is an official ruling that comes down in opposition to this line of reasoning, it seems that this would be the RAW or not written as the case may be for this issue.

I never really looked at that because I knew the intent of the spell, but that is a good point.

[InzemO.On]

So is this the general consensus, as Hendelbolaf wrote : "even dead, you are still a creature" and by consequence still a valid spell target ?

The reasonning makes a lot of sense, and this has interesting consequences in the game. For example :
- Your non expired buffs do function again if you are brought back to life. Good for high level wizards :)
- If you die while invisible, you remain invisible until the spell expires. Too bad for low level rogues :(
- If you are dead, i can still target your body with a Magic missile.

And certainly many more i just can't imagine right now !

Does everybody agree with this ?
Thanks !

[Ipslore the Red]

InzemO.On wrote:

So is this the general consensus, as Hendelbolaf wrote : "even dead, you are still a creature" and by consequence still a valid spell target ?

The reasonning makes a lot of sense, and this has interesting consequences in the game. For example :
- Your non expired buffs do function again if you are brought back to life. Good for high level wizards :)
- If you die while invisible, you remain invisible until the spell expires. Too bad for low level rogues :(
- If you are dead, i can still target your body with a Magic missile.

And certainly many more i just can't imagine right now !

Does everybody agree with this ?
Thanks !

Long story short, no, not everyone agrees with this. I don't remember seeing a definitive consensus being reached.

[wraithstrike]

InzemO.On wrote:

So is this the general consensus, as Hendelbolaf wrote : "even dead, you are still a creature" and by consequence still a valid spell target ?

The reasonning makes a lot of sense, and this has interesting consequences in the game. For example :
- Your non expired buffs do function again if you are brought back to life. Good for high level wizards :)
- If you die while invisible, you remain invisible until the spell expires. Too bad for low level rogues :(
- If you are dead, i can still target your body with a Magic missile.

And certainly many more i just can't imagine right now !

Does everybody agree with this ?
Thanks !

By the rules I think you are not valid for a spell targeting a creature(something that is alive) since you are no longer alive, but I think this is one of those things that not many people enforce depending on the situation.

As an example if the party is on the verge of defeat and you want to teleport away not many GM's will count your buddy's corpse as an object instead of a creature in my experience.

[InzemO.On]

wraithstrike wrote:

you are not valid for a spell targeting a creature (something that is alive)

But Raise dead targets a *dead* creature, what clearly implies that a creature is not necessarily something alive ...

@Ipslore the Red : yes, and this is exactly the purpose of my post, see if a final conclusion can be reached. Is this too ambitious ? ;-)

[wraithstrike]

InzemO.On wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

you are not valid for a spell targeting a creature (something that is alive)

But Raise dead targets a *dead* creature, what clearly implies that a creature is not necessarily something alive ...

@Ipslore the Red : yes, and this is exactly the purpose of my post, see if a final conclusion can be reached. Is this too ambitious ? ;-)

It also calls out a "dead" creature, and in my post I did specify "something that is alive".

Dead creatures aka corpses are objects which are different then referencing creatures(which tend to refer to living creatures which are not objects).

edit: By calling out "dead creature" it pretty much makes it the case that calling out a "creature" means a living creature

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

Dead character remains creature seems like it would imply two other things:

I can't inhabit the same square as a corpse, or I'm squeezing
I can't move a corpse, ever, minus a bull rush or reposition.

[Alec Keeler]

So wraithstrike, by your logic, a "flying creature" is also not the same as a "creature" and is therefore not alive? Qualification is not the same as exclusion. A "creature" can be many things. Relative to the game, a "creature" can by flying, moving, grappled, speaking, deaf, all sorts of things that are relevant.

Raise Dead's target qualification is a "dead creature" because it targets a creature with a specific condition.

The rules for the spell Breath of Life state:
"Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature."

That second sentence pretty clearly implies that a "dead creature" is also a "creature."

So again, a qualifying adjective is not the same as excluding the noun it qualifies from still being that noun.

EDIT: To Anon Visitor,
If you are in the same square as someone who is prone, you are not squeezing. Unless the corpse is animated in midair, you are not squeezing.

As far as moving a corpse goes, I'm fairly certain you don't need a CMB check against something you aren't in combat with, or something that is actively resisting your efforts. If you're knocking over a coat rack because you're mad it dropped your jacket, your DM probably isn't going to ask you to roll a trip check. Further, upon a simple reading of the CMB rules:
"If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds..." It is also defined as action taken in combat. I doubt you're trying to fight your fallen companion's corpse, just get it to a cart to take to the temple. Or whatever.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

Out of combat, i agree, moving a corpse is a non-issue.
In combat, that's where I have concerns.

Can i dimension door or teleport a corpse?
Must I use the standard action for a combat maneuver, or is it possible to double move with a corpse?

Thank you for the prone rule, that's one I missed. To be honest, until this thread, our group has treated the unconscious and dead as objects, and had spell effects run for the duration of the spell.

[Alec Keeler]

Concerning in combat, I'd say moving a corpse (or lifting it onto your shoulders if you are strong enough) almost certainly requires a standard action, and probably one that provokes AoO's. When this arises in my games, my DM counts this as a drag action, a standard that provokes, and can move the body 5 ft. Presumably, one "drags" a corpse rather than "repositions" it. It would be difficult for many characters to lift another character that is fully equipped with gear. Except maybe a Small one. My DM does not have us roll any checks to drag a fallen companion. I don't think anyone has tried dragging a foe's corpse in combat, but I presume the same would apply (shouldn't need to make checks against something that isn't resisting, but such an action provokes AoO's). Because dragging the body is a standard action, it limits the movement in combat to 5 ft per round. This makes logical sense to me, as moving a heavy body amidst a fight would be difficult, and not something you could do at "full speed."

Dimension Door (and Teleport, same rules) would function with a corpse (depending upon the spell's specifications) regardless of whether or not it is considered a creature.

In the case that it is NOT a creature:
"You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed your maximum load."

Or if it IS considered a creature:
"You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels."

Perhaps a corpse can be considered both or either in the case of the spell. Maybe that is a determination to be made by individual DMs.

EDIT: Upon re-reading the quote from Dimension Door concerning creatures, it specifies a "willing creature" (which is still a creature, as discussed previously :P), and therefore a corpse is considered an object for the purposes of this spell and others like it.

[Adacanavar]

Wilimac wrote:

I might be confused but death and active buff spells. Do all active spells that are on you (I.e shield of faith, telepathic bond, bless) end once you are considered dead. I know that a dead body is considered an object after death but wouldn't the spell duration continue on til they end?

And what would happen to active spells right before your an target of a Breath of life when your considered dead?

Sorry if this looks weird typing during a session on a tablet.

I actually had to answer this question recently in a game session a character was raised and had several permanent spells on him. Everything i could find concerning dead players says they are creatures and obviously if they can be targeted by a spell such as animate dead they are valid targets for any spell just like an undead creature is even a mindless one. Therefore the ruling i made was that spells last past death if you are brought back in the same body you retain the spells which were on you. If you are brought back in a shinny new body reincarnation or true resurrection the spells are gone.

[InzemO.On]

Adacanavar wrote:

Everything i could find concerning dead players says they are creatures

Adacanavar, may i please ask you to be more specific with this *everything*, as this is precisely the object of the debate here ?

Personnally i found nothing saying that creatures become objects upon dying, except posts asserting so without argumentation.
But i found a few good arguments to support the opposite point of view : the definition of the target for Raise dead, Resurrection, Breath of Life seems to me a very straightforward and strong point; along with the above remark from Alec pointing that 'dead' is grammatically a qualifier for 'creature'.

[InzemO.On]

Following Adacanavar input and looking for references to dead characters :

PFRPG Glossary wrote:

(...) a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.

and also wrote:

Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body.

link to quote#1, quote#2- So the dead character is still described in terms of hit points and constitution score : this is not how you would describe an object.

I would say, another argument in favor of retaining the 'creature' status after death, with the 'dead' condition.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Dead characters don't stop being creatures; they are dead creatures.

Dead creatures become objects. This doesn't stop them also being creatures.

Spells last until they say they don't, typically because of the duration expiring. To cast a spell, the target must be a viable target for that spell. There is no rule saying they must remain a viable target throughout the duration, unless the spell specifically says differently.

[wraithstrike]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Dead characters don't stop being creatures; they are dead creatures.

Dead creatures become objects. This doesn't stop them also being creatures.

Spells last until they say they don't, typically because of the duration expiring. To cast a spell, the target must be a viable target for that spell. There is no rule saying they must remain a viable target throughout the duration, unless the spell specifically says differently.

Now this is a good point since the spell only checks for qualification when the spell is cast and it is not doing a continuous check likr feats do. However if you are dead before the spell is cast you may not qualify.

[Nostratus]

wraithstrike wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Dead characters don't stop being creatures; they are dead creatures.

Dead creatures become objects. This doesn't stop them also being creatures.

Spells last until they say they don't, typically because of the duration expiring. To cast a spell, the target must be a viable target for that spell. There is no rule saying they must remain a viable target throughout the duration, unless the spell specifically says differently.

Now this is a good point since the spell only checks for qualification when the spell is cast and it is not doing a continuous check likr feats do. However if you are dead before the spell is cast you may not qualify.

It’s a good point as creature definition says it is something created either animate or inanimate. But the object definition says a thing that you can see and touch and that is not alive.

Regarding those definitions you can be in the same time a creature and an object so it doesn't help.

The real difference between an object and a creature is its essence the creature is animal or human not the object. It is the soul that makes the creature (cf. Mary Shelley's Novel).

Referring to all of these points the notion of dead creature is a non sense, in the dead condition the soul leaves the body, so the body is no longer a creature and becomes an object.

You can resurrect a creature only with some ashes, so as I understand it is the soul that you raise or resurrect not the body.

So a valid spell target is a soul in an object (the body), if you're dead the soul leaves the body, you become a "dead creature» and can be targeted only by spell referring to this state.

[AKPyroMancer]

If you define a creature as a soul, or something with a soul, what would you call a construct? Are constructs not creatures? Pretty sure they don't have souls.

Also, where are you getting this definition of a creature? "it is something created either animate or inanimate"? I'm sorry but that's a BS definition of a creature. Something created and is animate or inanimate? Literally EVERYTHING fits that description.

I'm sorry, I've never seen anything in Pathfinder that supports your statements. To the contrary, I've only seen, as noted before, things that specifically refer to a dead body as a creature.

Just as a quick example, the spell Raise Dead targets a dead creature touched, not the soul of a dead creature.

The spell also happens to refer to the creature's soul as a completely separate thing.

[InzemO.On]

Nostratus wrote:

The real difference between an object and a creature is its essence the creature is animal or human not the object. It is the soul that makes the creature (cf. Mary Shelley's Novel).

As AKPyroMancer I disagree with Nostratus : this may be Mary Shelley's perspective, but in Pathfinder creatures with a soul are qualified as 'living' creatures (ie, *really* living), as opposed to undeads and constructs who are not (really) 'living', but are creatures nevertheless :

found in chapter 'Magic', section 'Aiming a spell' wrote:

Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead (link)

[MeanMutton]

InzemO.On wrote:

As AKPyroMancer I disagree with Nostratus : this may be Mary Shelley's perspective, but in Pathfinder creatures with a soul are qualified as 'living' creatures (ie, *really* living), as opposed to undeads and constructs who are not (really) 'living', but are creatures nevertheless :

found in chapter 'Magic', section 'Aiming a spell' wrote:

Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead (link)

So, technically, a dead character is not only a creature but is, technically, a living creature.

[InzemO.On]

MeanMutton wrote:

So, technically, a dead character is not only a creature but is, technically, a living creature.

Quite a surrealist wording but yes, a dead character is a dead 'living creature', and a dead zombie would be a dead 'non-living (undead) creature'. I love this game :-)

[Nostratus]

What is really surrealist is to say that pile of dust is a creature. After a disintegrate you can use ashes for ressurection, but ashes are not a creature anymore.

[InzemO.On]

Nostratus wrote:

What is really surrealist is to say that pile of dust is a creature. After a disintegrate you can use ashes for ressurection, but ashes are not a creature anymore.

This sounds self contradictory : if you can target them with a Resurrection, it means that the ashes are a valid target, which is a 'dead creature', which is a 'creature' with the 'dead' condition. No creature, no resurrection. These ashes must be a (extremely dead) creature, otherwise you could not resurrect them.

I otherwise tend to agree that this is surrealist, but if you admit resurrection and disintegration as normal things, then you have to admit as well that disintegration ashes are actually (dead) creatures that can be resurrected ^^

[Nostratus]

Don't be so down to earth Inzemoon, the rule is a result of a reflection. So let's think. Ashes or a severed are no longer a creature but only the leftovers of a creature, don't that the soul is gone as said the dead condition.
Those leftovers are useful for raise dead or resurrection, because the power of magic can bring back the soul into the reconstituted body. But saying ashes can keep the magic it's nonsense.

[InzemO.On]

Nostratus The Unbeliever wrote:

(...) saying ashes can keep the magic it's nonsense

That, is your opinion after too much reading of Mary Shelley ;-)

It is absolutely respectable, but it is only an opinion and consequently does not help the debate a lot.
I would prefer to read some references and facts within PFRPG, that support this opinion. Or, good reasons to handle such situations that way for the sake of keeping the game manageable, or fun, or balanced.

What is wrong with the statement that if these ashes are enougth of a creature to constitute a valid target for a Resurrection spell, then they are also enougth of it to retain some magical effects that affected the creature before it's death ? Or, if you take it another way, why should it be a nonsense in a context where resurrection, disintegration and magic in general are not ?