|
I'm wondering if Deathwatch would immediately out a mimic who is hiding in plain sight disguised as an object.
Deathwatch:
The mimic is alive and in plain view, so I'm coming down on the side of Deathwatch making you immediately aware that the object is a creature.
And then what about a construct that isn't obviously a construct at first sight, like say a caryatid column. I'm thinking that since it's not alive, just like your run of the mill architectural column isn't alive, Deathwatch wouldn't tell you anything is unusual about the creature.
What says the esteemed internets?
The developer of that Carrion Crown adventure (#43, The Haunting of Harrowstone) almost certainly used deathwatch as a shortcut way to (1) make the creature workable despite its blindness, (2) rely on an existing game mechanic that everyone is familiar with, and (3) not spend 8 lines of text reinventing the wheel by explaining a new ability that's 90% like deathwatch.
Jonathan Tweet said in regard to rules design, "things should be the same, or different." In other words, it's better for the players (and GM) if the game standardizes how things work, instead of having a bunch of slightly-different variants that are hard to remember. For example, all of the PF feats for Improved [Combat Maneuvers] work the same way, in that they give you the exact same three things:
• no AOO when you perform the maneuver
• a +2 bonus to perform the maneuver
• a +2 bonus to resist the maneuver
That's consistent, and easy to remember. Everyone can just memorize one set of rules for "how the combat maneuver feats work," and they're done. If Imp Bull Rush was no-AOO/+3/+1, Imp Disarm was AOO/+5/+2, Imp Grapple was no-AOO/+1/+3, and Imp Trip was AOO/+2/+5, that would be incredibly hard to remember and people would mix them up all the time.Same thing with the deathwatch monster. The developer could have created a custom ability that let it notice and pinpoint living, undead, and dying creatures within range, perhaps with a couple of tweaks to allow it to "see" creatures this way instead of merely identifying creatures it was already observing, and that rules text would borrow heavily from the deathwatch spell description. OR the developer could do what he did and give the creature deathwatch in its Senses line, and manually adjust its stats and penalties to reflect the effect that deathwatch has on the creature's blindness. It's a special encounter with a unique creature, and sometimes we bend the rules to make an interesting encounter.
Honestly, I don't think deathwatch lets you pinpoint anything. But I think having a headless undead monster compensate for its blindness by using deathwatch is a cool thing and makes for a creepy encounter, and that trumps 100% adherence to the rules. GMs are allowed to bend the rules if it makes the game enjoyable and isn't done to punish the players.
And that means you shouldn't use unique, customized monsters in a particular adventure to justify how standard spells and abilities are supposed to work for PCs. Sometimes they're tweaked to make an interesting encounter. And sometimes there can be errors. I'd put the "sees with deathwatch monster" in the former category.
|
You should check out this thread
Short answer : not totally clear. Personally, I'd allow it to work on both cases above.
|
|
I have seen Mike Brock's post from that thread, though I hadn't read SKR's post from it.
I completely agree in the situation where a creature is invisible or similarly undetected.
I'm not as certain in the case where a creature is in plain view but mimicking something innocuous, such as an actual mimic or caryatid column.
I agree with the OP - the spell is discerning life and unlife energies. A mimic will register as living, even if you didn't know to be examining it in that way. A Caryotic Column won't register, so until you know it is a creature, it's just part of the decoration.