I think the question is just "this seems a very powerful ability at first level. Is it intended?"
There are also a number of questions that arise about how it works. For example, if I use this ability to bring the fighter at -20 HP back to life, and he drinks a cure potion, will he still re-die at the end of the time period? Is this a cheesy way to get a resurrection effect at 1st level?
I think the question is just "this seems a very powerful ability at first level. Is it intended?"
There are also a number of questions that arise about how it works. For example, if I use this ability to bring the fighter at -20 HP back to life, and he drinks a cure potion, will he still re-die at the end of the time period? Is this a cheesy way to get a resurrection effect at 1st level?
You could most certainly resurrect anything that had a special ability that delayed the onset of death. Like the Silver Dragon’s ability. No? Since it delays death, it would be feasible the dragon could prevent it.
What other abilities delay or prevent death from occurring? They might have peculiar interactions with this ability.
Oh!
Billy and Bobby are brothers, and they’re both clerics with this subdomain power. (RP, its fitting)
They have a buddy who dies, Billy uses this ability to transfer the dead condition to himself. Their buddy is no longer dead. Billy dies. Bobby then uses the ability to transfer the dead condition to himself from Billy. Billy is no longer dead. Bobby dies. Billy is immune to being dead. Billy uses this ability on Bobby to transfer the dead condition to himself. Bobby is no longer dead. Billy isn’t either because he was immune to being dead.
They all head down to the local tavern to celebrate.
Man, having two clerics with this domain power means you can cure any condition.
No.
paizo prd state that dead is a condition, so by RAW I think you could use it on a dead ally...
But the question is what happend to your Supernatural Abilities (and so to Binding Ties) when you are "dead"?
Did they continue to work over the remaning rounds, or did they end?
No.
Yes.
I think the question is just "this seems a very powerful ability at first level. Is it intended?"
There are also a number of questions that arise about how it works. For example, if I use this ability to bring the fighter at -20 HP back to life, and he drinks a cure potion, will he still re-die at the end of the time period? Is this a cheesy way to get a resurrection effect at 1st level?
Personally I'd rule that as curing the damage, but the death state (technically independent of the negative HP state) still returning. So, the fighter will die again but at least their unsightly wounds have now healed somewhat :)
Seems to me that a corpse is an object, not an ally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that a corpse is an object, not an ally.
Oh god. Not this again. Please for the love of the gods not this again.
|
I spoke with my tabletop group and we decided that this ability will not be banned from use on the Dead condition. But since it's a family sub-domain ability that any time it's in effect for the Dead condition we will have the offending player listen to "We are family" (or whatever the song is called) with sound cancelling headphones on a very high volume.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd rule that as curing the damage, but the death state (technically independent of the negative HP state) still returning. So, the fighter will die again but at least their unsightly wounds have now healed somewhat :)This. The fighter will gain the "dead" condition again when the effect ends. Falling to -con gains you the dead condition, but isn't a hard requirement.
Yeah I'd follow this as well.
|
Seems to me this is how it works:
So you as the cleric bring your Dead(over con in negatives) back to life and you are dead for those rounds, then your "friend" goes back to being dead. Healing during this time won't remove the dead condition, unless you use breath of life withing the 1 round allowance. So you get your fighter up so that the party doesn't wipe, but he's still dead at the end of the domain ability's timer.
If just unconscious(negative HP less than con) then they'd still be unconscious at the end of the phase, regardless of current HP total. They would need to be brought back to consciousness after the effect ended.
Seems to me this is how it works:
So you as the cleric bring your Dead(over con in negatives) back to life and you are dead for those rounds, then your "friend" goes back to being dead. Healing during this time won't remove the dead condition, unless you use breath of life withing the 1 round allowance. So you get your fighter up so that the party doesn't wipe, but he's still dead at the end of the domain ability's timer.
Well, that's one corner case nailed down. <evil grin> Now, how long can the fighter have been dead for? Can I remove a dead condition from a body that's been dead for a month? If so, I fall dead -- but the rogue can just UMD a breath of life spell on me next round. Have we just upped breath of life up to a full resurrection effect?
I can continue to develop these cases, of course. While this may be an "absurd RAW discussion," the real point is that this seems a very badly written and ambiguous ability. (I notice, for example, that Mr. Risner suggested that the bleed condition should not be removable. I'm not sure that's any less absurd than making it removable.)
I think the breath of life thing would work, as long as the intended target is really an ally, and not some long-lost sage you'd like to interrogate.
I'm actually more intrigued by the way this interacts with grappled and pinned.
|
I think it all hinges around the definition of an ally, does a corpse (even a friends) count as an ally. I suspect not, an ally is someone you cooperate with for mutual benefit, corpses aren't cooperating with anyone, they just sort of... lay there. Thus I would guess an ally must be a creature capable of acting in some manner to cooperate with you either choosing to work with you or obeying your commands (such as an animated undead).
... this would be very boss to use with prone.
... this would be very boss to use with prone.
Ho yeaaaaaah!
Race cycling?
|
Imagination. Its basically are there limits... A druid or inquisitor could take on the clerics death condition so he can raise dead, a front liner getting energy or strength drained can be made immune to go forward with impunity, a grapple caster can be un-grappled (or cause your not in the opponents space do you become immune or do you swap places), Make the barbarian immune to fatigue so he can rage cycle with impunity etc etc etcSure, the target is immune to death. You, meanwhile, are dead for a number of rounds equal to your cleric level.
I guess I fail to see what the question is, here?
Sure. The inquisitor takes on the cleric's dead condition, then the cleric raises dead on the inquisitor. Of course, the cleric will have to be at least 9th level just to cast Raise Dead. Unfortunately, he's only alive and immune to death for 9 rounds at that point...one less than it takes to cast Raise Dead. So, he has to be at least 11th level to be able to use this tactic and still have a round of immunity to death. Of course, he could use Raise Dead to bring himself back to life, then the Inquisitor would just come back at the end of 11 rounds. Except Raise Dead only targets a dead creature...which the cleric won't be until he regains the dead condition. None of the Res spells will work, either. Also, as pointed out elsewhere, if you do remove the dead condition from the cleric, he may now revert to Unconscious and/or Dying. And possibly prone, unless he's in some wonky upright death pose. So, if he died from hit point damage dropping him below -CON hp, he is no longer dead. He is, though, unconscious and dying. Someone better hit him with a cure stick or potion. That done, using at least one round of his immunity to death, possibly a couple depending on the disposition of the battlefield, now he has to get to the dead Inquisitor. So, assuming you're high enough level, you are able to raise dead on the inquisitor and you now have the party back to full strength. Of course, you just spent 13 rounds doing so...how many PFRPG combats run into the 14th round? To do this, you essentially tie up two PCs for the entire encounter, and once the duration is over, even if the cleric was healed to 110% full normal hit points, he is D-E-A-D. Casting Raise Dead on him, inquisitor?
Breath of Life would work. So, I suppose if you built a party with two clerics with this power, you could have an essentially invincible/immortal party. Until the GM wises up and starts hitting you with death effects. This is the only way I see to marginally break this ability.
None of the other conditions presents a game-breaking situation. So your barbarian can rage without becoming fatigued. Or, at least until you run out or uses per day. Or until he runs out of rage for the day. Annoying for a GM? A little more difficult to plan for? Sure. Game breaking? Not in the least.
Grappled spellcaster is no longer grappled (now the cleric is, instead). Great. We have no Band-Aid. How, exactly, does one go about removing the grappled condition if one isn't actively being grappled? As a GM, and since there are no rules on the subject, I'd tell you that you have to break the grapple using the CMD of the creature that originally grappled the caster. With no rules covering such a situation, we revert to Rule Zero.
Energy drained front line fighters are now immune to energy drain for a number of rounds equal to the cleric's level. Of course, the cleric is now down as many levels as the fighter was, reducing the duration of the fighter's immunity and making the cleric's job harder. The cleric could target the fighter with a restoration...unless it's the spell he lost when he lost his level. Game breaking? There are other ways of making someone immune to energy drain. Is this a little cheaper? Yeah, a bit. But it has a pretty serious consequence for the one granting the immunity. Seems like an even trade-off to me.
Conditions like prone or petrified, I could see some ways to abuse it a little...but still nothing game breaking. Immunity to prone only matters if you're fighting something that relies on tripping, much less likely in PF than it was in 3.5, or if you're on treacherous terrain. Sure it can make those situations easier than expected...but they're real corner cases.
Ability drain and damage aren't conditions, so no matter how hard you try, you can't make your fighter immune to them with this ability. Ever.
So, the answer to, "Are there limits?" is, "Yeah. A number of times per day equal to 3+Wis, each for a duration of 1 rd/cleric level."
Finally, if I'm the GM, and you're using this to try to game the system, I'll just have you fight a pair of evil clerics and their antipaladin sidekicks, then, when you drop to -hp and stabilize, I'll use this ability on you and make you immune to the stable condition for a number of rounds equal to my cleric level. Whoops. Sorry about that. I can game the system, too.
Seems to me that a corpse is an object, not an ally.Oh god. Not this again. Please for the love of the gods not this again.
Again? I don't see it anywhere in the thread above my post - and it's the first page of the thread.
When someone is dead, their soul leaves the body. It's now just a corpse. Are they both allies (the soul and the corpse)? Have you created a new ally by mitosis?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you see its one ability with ALOT of flexibility for a smart player. Worse it often requires house rules or head ache cases. Either way I think it requires some errata.
A lot of versatility...none of it game breaking. That's been my point the entire discussion. I don't see it requiring any house rules or creating any more headaches than a smart player creates normally. I also see no need for errata. The ability is spelled out pretty clearly. It does exactly what it says it does. No need to errata something that makes perfect sense. If you as GM can't handle the situations this ability presents, I suggest you work on stepping up your GM game. There's nothing terribly difficult about handling this ability.
Personally as a DM I try to reward smart/creative play.
As do I. Smart/creative play is fantastic, and the ability mentioned here lends itself to all sorts of creative uses. I'm all for players using it...I'm all for players finding fun ways to use it. You seem to misunderstand what I said.
As opposed to lording over others. I would never gun after a PC as you would.
I've never "gunned for a PC" in my life, and I've GMed for some super munchkins. Nor did I say that I would. What I did say was, if a player is trying to game the system with this ability (or any ability for that matter), then they have to expect the NPCs to do the same thing. That's not "gunning for a PC," that's playing the game on your players' level. My players understand that I can game the system as well as, or better than, they can. Using an ability creatively isn't gaming the system, though. Manipulating an ability or rule to give yourself an unfair/unintended advantage is gaming the system. There's a huge difference between the two. No penalties for creativity; substantial penalties for gaming the system.
I'm also a big fan of the "lording over others" crack. Because using the PC's tactics against him/her is "lording over" them. I think you may need to look up the meaning of that cliche.
I would be more inclined to gun after clerics with the travel/liberation/luck domain candy constants than those who look beyond the optimization guides for situational coolness and saving others at cost.
But, you'd NEVER gun for a PC "as I would"... Outstanding contradiction.
|
|
Seems to me that a corpse is an object, not an ally.Oh god. Not this again. Please for the love of the gods not this again.Again? I don't see it anywhere in the thread above my post - and it's the first page of the thread.
When someone is dead, their soul leaves the body. It's now just a corpse. Are they both allies (the soul and the corpse)? Have you created a new ally by mitosis?
This argument has flared up numerous times on the boards. It hasn't been discussed here, specifically, until you brought it up. Simply search the boards for discussions on corpses being objects and you'll discover what Scavion is worried about. No one wants to see that debate start again.