So here is the question:
If the witch's body dies and the witch's souls is in the familiar's body, and they are capable of casting Raise Dead on the Witch's Body does the witch still get the negative levels?
Reasonings:
The with never ~died~ as his soul jumped ship before dying. Raise dead is only reviving the body to being an empty vessel.
The witch DID die. Her soul and her body were separated.
The spell does not specify where the soul has to be after death, only that the person cannot be undead or killed by a death effect.
Here is the extra question onto that then:
What is the point of casting "Raise Dead" and Restoration spells when the witch could just possess the body of someone else, effectively killing them instantly without taking negative levels or it costing the witch anything.For instance the party could knock out a hostile enemy, have the witch possess his body, and boom, no more body needed. The enemy's soul is on its way to Pharasma while the witch is "alive" again.
The important statistics for the witch (Intelligence) moves with the witch.
For the Witch to get her own body back..
I would also consider it an evil act to body hop like that to stay alive. Good witches may do that to keep in the fight until they could return to their body, but not as a long lasting solution.
Yeah, but once the witch hops to another body other than her own or her familiar's, the soul of the body she takes over leaves and dies. There isn't a point to giving it back.
In the spell description it offers that
"Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject takes 2 negative levels. . . ."
Then again, coming back from the dead for the witch is as easy as touching the body and traveling over. Her soul hasn't gone into the afterlife, which is where the spell description is assuming it has gone.
There is also the very major problem of the Witch could get into the body of a highly advantageous creature.
For instance, what happens if she attempts to possess that red dragon the party is fighting and it fails its will save. I somehow wonder what the Gold Dragon who sent them on their quest will think when the party walks up with Red Dragon in tow and he's like, "Yo, so, yeah, evidently I'm a dragon now. First Chaotic Good Red Dragon in history."
Attempting to possess a body is a full-round action. It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward. You possess the body and force the creature's soul into the magic jar unless the subject succeeds on a Will save. Failure to take over the host leaves your life force in the magic jar, and the target automatically succeeds on further saving throws if you attempt to possess its body again.
So the act of moving in on an occupied body is a demonstrably evil act and there's no way to argue around it.
I'm not sure you need to Raise Dead a witch whose body died after the soul hopped to the Familiar. It just needs to be healed up and then the witch can move back in with a touch. I would say that, in fact, you cannot use Raise Dead on the witch's corpse while the soul is in the familiar because the soul hasn't moved on to elsewhere.
So yeah, the witch never died. The witch's body died. Raise dead doesn't work on things that aren't dead. Though if the body is not healed after it is beaten to "death", the soul will not be able to animate the body (as it would be dead, immediately triggering the Twin Soul ability again).
[ . . . ]I'm not sure you need to Raise Dead a witch whose body died after the soul hopped to the Familiar. It just needs to be healed up and then the witch can move back in with a touch. I would say that, in fact, you cannot use Raise Dead on the witch's corpse while the soul is in the familiar because the soul hasn't moved on to elsewhere.
So yeah, the witch never died. The witch's body died. Raise dead doesn't work on things that aren't dead. Though if the body is not healed after it is beaten to "death", the soul will not be able to animate the body (as it would be dead, immediately triggering the Twin Soul ability again).
I have to agree with you. It is possible to heal a corpse. It is even suggested with the Orcish feat that lets the soul linger for a while before departing and if the orc's body is healed before the soul moves on then it just comes back to life.
The witch would still have the "alive" status, it just might take a lot of healing to get the body working again.
So here is the question:
If the witch's body dies and the witch's souls is in the familiar's body, and they are capable of casting Raise Dead on the Witch's Body does the witch still get the negative levels?Reasonings:
The with never ~died~ as his soul jumped ship before dying. Raise dead is only reviving the body to being an empty vessel.
- Yes, the casting of Raise Dead is a "traumatic experience" (body and spirit). The spirit can still refuse to come back to the body after the spell is cast.
- The witch still died, his/her spirit just stayed on the material plane instead of moving on. How long the spirit could remain so would be up to the GM to decide.
- When a body is "killed" the link between body and spirit is severed. When using abilities that allow the spirit to leave the body, there is usually a tether of some sort - a link to the physical body. This would also be broken when the body is "killed." in order to restore the body/spirit link, some magic would be involved - Raise Dead, Resurrection, Reincarnation, Wish, Divine Intervention, etc.
- If you are going with the other route, why not just hit up a grave yard, "heal" up a corpse, and move on in. Pick something with really good physical stats (like, say, the burly fighter that just passed on) and dance for joy.
- -Doomn
|
Attempting to possess a body is a full-round action. It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward. You possess the body and force the creature's soul into the magic jar unless the subject succeeds on a Will save. Failure to take over the host leaves your life force in the magic jar, and the target automatically succeeds on further saving throws if you attempt to possess its body again.I know we are on the same page here in regards to the whole process, but a protection from good spell would block it as well. It's not that jumping bodies is an evil act, its jumping to avoid paying the cost of the raise dead.
In combat, witch dies and jumps to keep in the fray, no problem.
Has to jump once to twice while getting back to civilization and get back in her body, no problem.Deciding that the best way to live forever is just to keep jumping bodies... That's where we have a problem.
The Good character has desire to get back to her body, the evil ones figure it's a great way to stay alive and to hide from the good guys.
First, protection from Good doesn't protect you, the spell is explicit that only protection from evil works. (as the recent faq on Pro Evil helped clarify).
Second, the spell is not flagged as evil so using it is not an evil act just like using finger of death or dominate person isn't by nature an evil act. How you use it might be evil but just using it is not.
Finally, Magic Jar allows you to keep all abilities that are automatic or natural and that you can't activate their extraordinary or supernatural abilities not that you don't keep them. The body still has them you just can't will them to work which is why you pick a body with automatic abilities that are always on.
@Taku, Dragons are horrible forms to choose for this you want something more useful which is why you pick a Golem, preferably a Flesh Golem.
Immortality, Great Physical Strength, full construct traits and an immunity to magic or anything requiring a fort save. The only thing you'd ever need to worry about is Mind Affecting spells and those are your strong saves.
You don't even have to worry about Pro Evil since the body is immune to magic and that spell can't be cast on it. Awsome form.
|
|
@Taku, Dragons are horrible forms to choose for this you want something more useful which is why you pick a Golem, preferably a Flesh Golem.
Immortality, Great Physical Strength, full...PLEASE do that in my campaign... Pretty please....
- When a flesh golem enters combat, there is a cumulative 1% chance each round that its elemental spirit breaks free and the golem goes berserk. The uncontrolled golem goes on a rampage, attacking the nearest living creature or smashing some object smaller than itself if no creature is within reach, then moving on to spread more destruction. The golem's creator, if within 60 feet, can try to regain control by speaking firmly and persuasively to the golem, which requires a DC 19 Charisma check. It takes 1 minute of inactivity by the golem to reset the golem's berserk chance to 0%.
- A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds (no save).
- A flesh golem cannot speak, although it can emit a hoarse roar of sorts. It walks and moves with a stiff-jointed gait, as if not in complete control of its body.
And that is just the start of the fun...
Read it again.
the ELEMENTAL SPIRIT breaks free and goes berserk. When we Magic Jar'ed into it that soul is kicked out so the berserk trait goes away.The flesh golem can't speak because it has an int of - not because it's physically incapable as the Spark of Consciousness ability clarifies.
Through some unknown process, rare berserk golems have been known to spontaneously generate consciousness and intelligence, breaking free of their masters’ control and setting them far above their mindless counterparts. This can only occur if the golem has ever gone berserk.The golem becomes an intelligent, sentient creature. Roll 3d6 for its new Intelligence and Charisma scores. The awakened golem immediately gains skill points equal to 2 + Int modif ier (minimum 1) per Hit Die, as well as feats based on its Hit Dice. A golem has no class skills. The golem also gains the ability to speak the language of its creator and chooses any bonus languages from among those its creator speaks. While the golem retains its immunity to magic and most other construct traits, it loses its immunity to mind-affecting effects.
Finally, yes the fire/cold does cause a slow affect (doesn't cause damage just slow] but is auto broken by ANY electrical damage which is any number of spells including a 0th level spell. This of course assumes that spell actually gets TO the golem body anyway.
Edit: Also here's the interesting faq update for Pro Evil and it's ilk.
Protection From Evil: Does the "protection against possession and mental control" aspect work against non-evil controlling spells and effects?No. The spell says "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects." So if a chaotic neutral enemy casts charm person on you, protection from evil doesn't have any effect because neither the spell nor the caster is evil.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
AGAIN people, the point of this is to try and justify the casting of Raise Dead for a beast bonded witch who could, for much cheaper, possess an enemy from the dungeon. With any luck the witch would end up with some armor to sell and probably BETTER physical statistics.
So,
Justify casting Raise Dead on the character's corpse.
I tend to think about it like the Orcish feat Tenacious Survivor since the spirit could be attempting to return to the body or even momentarily possessing the corpse.
5000-gp or steal a body.
To Raise Dead, or not to Raise Dead, that is the question.
To steal, or not to steal, that is the [other] question.
You are confusing a spirit and a soul. The golem doesn't have a soul, the spell does NOT say it pushed the Spirit out.
Oh by Nethys, are we going to get into a retarded semantics argument? There are still morons who thinks Fire Immune creatures can be boiled.
The editors intentionally not use the exact same words over and over. Spirit is synonymous with Soul in almost every religious system and tradition. They are just different souls.
Would you rather Paizo painstakingly list every single synonym for something in their errata? It would make things easier, but then again they could just use the same words for everything.
Boiling water does boiling damage, right? NO PAIZO. NO. It does FIRE damage because that is an energy type.
So, Mr. Clectabled, what is the difference between a spirit and a soul, enlighten us to the semantics that we are obviously not privy to.
So, Mr. Clectabled, what is the difference between a spirit and a soul, enlighten us to the semantics that we are obviously not privy to.I find it funny that when presented with 'semantics' that work in some players favor, the details of the text must be adhered to, yet when presented with details that do NOT fall within the boundaries of what you want it's always the editors don't want to use the same words or some such crap.
I could point to thousands of fantasy books that provide examples of the difference between Soul and Spirit, or even back to good old 1st edition D&D where Elves could not be raised because they had a spirit, not a soul. That's why Banshees are the 'spirits' of a female elf and not of a female human. They are/were treated as separate.
That the Golem references a spirit MAY be because the editors did not change the text moving forward from previous editions, but it's NOT because they simply decided to use a different word for soul.
Now the game has come a long way since then, and the 'editors' have decided to change Elves so they do have souls, but its pretty explicit that Golems have spirits, and the history of the game has pretty explicitly expressed a difference between the two.
Now if you want to find a rule that says spirit = soul(although Tenacious Survivor that indicates the spirit = soul it's flavor text, not a rule) .. I'll back off my stance there, and probably even throw in an apology.
How you took this to boiling damage vs fire is a little beyond me but .. whatever.
As far as the discussion at hand, well I think that has been covered.
Hmm. I never really thought of the two as different entities (spirit and soul), but evidently it is a big deal in the past. To me they are semantics, but perhaps to the editors there is actually a difference.
I got Fire vs Boiling because that is quite literally a semantics argument that people are still arguing. Albiet a bit more direct with an argument that I have always found asinine (Oh man, that 200 degree water is so much more dangerous than 2000 degree lava). As someone who tries to work within the system to create cool and interesting things it drives me crazy when I run into these issues where the editors intentionally used synonyms while not indicating. The Harpy's song is another one that just downright pisses me off and makes me want to slap one of the editors. What status condition is it? Fascinated? No one knows, and everyone argues about it because one of the writers decided to use a synonym for a status condition that just so happens to be a synonym for most of the mind-effecting statuses.
TLDR: So, evidently there is a difference between spirit and soul in the previous iterations of D&D. To me they've always just been synonyms, and the overuse of synonyms in Pathfinder about important things make me angry due to it feeling like poor editing due to the problems it causes.
So, Mr. Clectabled, what is the difference between a spirit and a soul, enlighten us to the semantics that we are obviously not privy to.I find it funny that when presented with 'semantics' that work in some players favor, the details of the text must be adhered to, yet when presented with details that do NOT fall within the boundaries of what you want it's always the editors don't want to use the same words or some such crap.
I could point to thousands of fantasy books that provide examples of the difference between Soul and Spirit, or even back to good old 1st edition D&D where Elves could not be raised because they had a spirit, not a soul. That's why Banshees are the 'spirits' of a female elf and not of a female human. They are/were treated as separate.
That the Golem references a spirit MAY be because the editors did not change the text moving forward from previous editions, but it's NOT because they simply decided to use a different word for soul.
Now the game has come a long way since then, and the 'editors' have decided to change Elves so they do have souls, but its pretty explicit that Golems have spirits, and the history of the game has pretty explicitly expressed a difference between the two.
Now if you want to find a rule that says spirit = soul(although Tenacious Survivor that indicates the spirit = soul it's flavor text, not a rule) .. I'll back off my stance there, and probably even throw in an apology.
How you took this to boiling damage vs fire is a little beyond me but .. whatever.
As far as the discussion at hand, well I think that has been covered.
Hmm. I never really thought of the two as different entities (spirit and soul), but evidently it is a big deal in the past. To me they are semantics, but perhaps to the editors there is actually a difference.
I got Fire vs Boiling because that is quite literally a semantics argument that people are still arguing. Albiet a bit more direct with an argument that I have always found asinine (Oh man, that 200 degree water is so much more dangerous than 2000 degree lava). As someone who tries to work within the system to create cool and interesting things it drives me crazy when I run into these issues where the editors intentionally used synonyms while not indicating. The Harpy's song is another one that just downright pisses me off and makes me want to slap one of the editors. What status condition is it? Fascinated? No one knows, and everyone argues about it because one of the writers decided to use a synonym for a status condition that just so happens to be a synonym for most of the mind-effecting statuses.
TLDR: So, evidently there is a difference between spirit and soul in the previous iterations of D&D. To me they've always just been synonyms, and the overuse of synonyms in Pathfinder about important things make me angry due to it feeling like poor editing due to the problems it causes. So, maybe there is a difference between a "spirit" and a "soul" in pathfinder, and it isn't simply Paizo screwing up.
|
First, protection from Good doesn't protect you, the spell is explicit that only protection from evil works. (as the recent faq on Pro Evil helped clarify).So the quoted "or a similar ward" means whats exactly?
Ref please on the Pro Evil FAQ.
Don't disagree with anything else you had..
This looks like an issue of laziness or poor editing. The text for magic jar is cut-n-pasted right out of 3.5 OGL making 3.5 and Pathfinder identical when it comes to the wording of magic jar (I believe - I am human after all and might have missed something.) BUT protection from evil is different in 3.5 and Pathfinder. 3.5 specifically says "This second effect works regardless of alignment." And Pathfinder states, "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."
By RAW magic jar is not an evil spell because it doesn't have the descriptor and I think you could argue by RAW protection from evil will only work when the caster is evil. The text as RAW says "It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward". The key is "or" had it said "protection from evil and similar wards" it would be clear that protection from evil always works, but since it says "or similar ward," protection of evil is not always included. But that is my argument - which I believe keeps the game to as close to how it was meant to be. That is RAW
By RAI - there is an argument that magic jar became an evil spell because a spell that protects against evil specifically protects against magic jar. But it is not an argument I would make. Following the logic above, by RAI I would say that Magic Jar is an ongoing compulsion or possession and a spell that protects against such a thing, such as protection from evil when the caster is evil or protection from good when the caster is good would protect against magic jar.
This replaces the witch’s major hex at 10th-level.
The ability kicks in when dying, not dead. The witch does not die, so Raise Dead's Target of dead creature touched cannot target the witch's body, as it is no longer a creature. The text also states: "You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than 1 day per caster level." Since she is not dead, again this spell fails.
The spells Mending and Make Whole, however, could repair the body if you fix enough HP to make it greater than negative con. [I would make HP positive were I to go this route.] Once the body is no longer "destroyed", but potentially "dying", or with a few HP, the witch can return with NO level loss.
The spell Clone, also mentioned, creates "an inert duplicate of a creature". It is a valid target for Raise Dead, so it should also work with the transfer by touch with no level loss, as there is no death being undone.
It is clear from Magic Jar that the moving of a soul from one body to another does not impose negative levels.
This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
If the witch is not evil, Protection from Evil does not stop Magic Jar. However, the control might have been suppressed, except for the fact the resisting soul just died from being pushed out with nowhere to go.
/cevah
I just don’t see the big deal. Use the Magic Jar effect. It’s an archetype you take for this exact reason. It’s not an evil act. You have to look at the context of who you take over. Is it an innocent child... evil. Is it a non-combatant who has done nothing wrong... evil. Is it an enemy who is trying or tried to kill you... not evil. If you’re going to kill him anyways then what’s the problem. It’s actually the most humane way to go if you think about it. Painless. Instant. Your soul just passes on. Would you rather the warrior split your head open with a broadsword?
In game terms it’s not evil. In RP terms it shouldn't be considered evil either unless you’re taking over someone that’s innocent.
Attempting to possess a body is a full-round action. It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward. You possess the body and force the creature's soul into the magic jar unless the subject succeeds on a Will save. Failure to take over the host leaves your life force in the magic jar, and the target automatically succeeds on further saving throws if you attempt to possess its body again.So the act of moving in on an occupied body is a demonstrably evil act and there's no way to argue around it.
No unless you want to say neutral creatures are evil too:
This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. When focused inward, the spell binds a non-good called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle.
Magic circle against evil can be used against any non-good creature -- including neutral.
** spoiler omitted **The ability kicks in when dying, not dead.
Actually it says "when gravely injured or about to die." This means it could kick in just as my life force is about to leave my body, or right as the killing blow is about to land, or before I hit the ground when plummeting down that acid filled pit, or as the trap goes off, or ... etc.
As long as one of those conditions are met, then this kicks in. So there are several possible cases (though not all) where this could happen and your character would die. Also I don't think you can make a saving throw to stabilize, so if you were dealing with the dying condition your body would probably just end up dead.
Spoiler:At 10th-level, if the witch or her familiar is gravely injured or about to die, the soul of the dying one immediately transfers to the other’s body. The two souls share the surviving body peaceably, can communicate freely, and both retain their ability to think and reason. The host may allow the guest soul to take over the body temporarily or reclaim it as a move action. They can persist in this state indefinitely, or the guest can return to its own body (if available) by touch, transfer into a suitable vessel (such as a clone), or take over another body as if using magic jar (with no receptacle).The ability kicks in when dying, not dead.
Spoiler put back in for reference.
Actually it says "when gravely injured or about to die." This means it could kick in just as my life force is about to leave my body, or right as the killing blow is about to land, or before I hit the ground when plummeting down that acid filled pit, or as the trap goes off, or ... etc.
As long as one of those conditions are met, then this kicks in. So there are several possible cases (though not all) where this could happen and your character would die. Also I don't think you can make a saving throw to stabilize, so if you were dealing with the dying condition your body would probably just end up dead.
No, the text actually sais "if the witch or her familiar is gravely injured or about to die, the soul of the dying one immediately transfers to the other’s body". The sour transfers before death occurs.
I don't know how stabilizing would work here. But since you can repair the body at any time, it should not make a big difference.
Is the twin soul ability a touch for all it's functions or is the last part a ranged one ala Magic Jar?
"They can persist in this state indefinitely, or the guest can return to its own body (if available) by touch, transfer into a suitable vessel (such as a clone), or take over another body as if using magic jar (with no receptacle)."
The magic jar effect is in a separate clause from the touch, so I would think RAI is distance per spell for the magic jar effect.
/cevah