Binding Ties (Su): As a standard action, you can touch an ally and remove one condition affecting the ally by transferring it to yourself. This transfer lasts a number of rounds equal to your cleric level, but you can end it as a free action on your turn. At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect. While this power is in use, the target is immune to the transferred condition. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Every GM I have talked to has had something different to say about this ability but the general consensus is that RAW it's too strong for a first level ability. From a PFS standpoint how does this ability work and does it work for every condition? (Dead, grappled, flat-footed, incorporeal, etc)
|
Death is a condition.
How it would work:
Fred the Fighter (14 Con) is reduced to -15 HP. He dies.
Charlie the Cleric uses Binding Ties.
Charlie the Cleric takes on the dead condition. Let's say he's sixth level, so it lasts six rounds (Charlie cannot end the condition as a free action because he's dead, so it will run its full duration).
Fred the Fighter is still at -15 HP. As he is immune to the Dead, he now has the Dying condition.
Bob the Barbarian pours a cure potion down Fred's throat and Fred is now at 1 HP.
Several rounds later, Binding Ties ends. Charlie loses the Dead condition and it reverts back to Fred. While Fred is at positive HP, the Dead condition applies and he's dead. Again.
We actually had a pair of brothers at our FLGS who played characters who were brothers and each dipped 1 level Cleric for this. They would daisy chain conditions.
There is a list of conditions in the back of the core.
If it is listed there I would suspect it can apply.
If two people traded conditions would they also be immune the condition??
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect that the vast majority of GMs will not let you treat dead as a condition for this ability.
As PFS is run RAW, Dead is a condition and the player would have a valid complaint if the GM did not allow the ability to work as written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect that the vast majority of GMs will not let you treat dead as a condition for this ability.As PFS is run RAW, Dead is a condition and the player would have a valid complaint if the GM did not allow the ability to work as written.
.. yeah. No.
As much as I think it's broken and causes problems as pointed out above, Sammy T is right. I FAQ'ed Sammy T's comment.
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. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
|
|
If two people traded conditions would they also be immune the condition??
Let's say the clerics are L2.
Round 1
Cleric 1 gets Nausea.
Cleric 2 uses Binding Ties. C2 gains Nausea. C1 loses Nausea and gains Immunity.
Round 2
C1 uses Binding Ties. C1 gains Nausea but is immune. C2 loses Nausea and gains Immunity.
Round 3
C2's Binding Ties wears off. Normally, the condition would revert to C1, but the condition was transferred to C1. There is no condition to transfer. However, C1 loses BT immunity...and he currently holds the condition. He gains Nausea.
Round 4
C1's Binding Ties wears off. Nausea reverts to C2. At this point, I would say table variation would kick in ("At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect"). Does C2 count as the "original" creature in relation to BT and the Nausea remains with C2 (especially as their BT has expired). Or would a GM count the first creature to gain the condition as the original creature and have it bounce C1 to C2 to C1?
TL;DR If you run 2 clerics with this, you're just begging for table variation and GM consternation
Thats what I figured would happen as well.
Why are people fighting the transferred dead condition?
It temporary trades that condition. In the end the player will still be dead.
It would be a great story for players at the table to tell.
"So I died, and then bob traded the dead condition with since I was that monmst so I got a few more rounds to kill it so we won. Then afterwards I became the risen."
What is wrong with that?
|
|
.. yeah. No.I would expect that the vast majority of GMs will not let you treat dead as a condition for this ability.As PFS is run RAW, Dead is a condition and the player would have a valid complaint if the GM did not allow the ability to work as written.
Why not? If you run it as RAW for the dead condition:
It's a 1 for 1 trade (I'm dead, you're not dead).
The target reverts to the DYING condition and still needs healing to positive HP. (Hilariously, they can keep failing stabilize checks and end up even more in the hole as they are immune to the Dead condition.)
The target, when healed to positive, has the prone condition AND dropped their weapon.
The target is going to die again.
It's actually a bad trade action economy-wise. Tactically, its value varies greatly as it depends on if the person you're bringing back is key for the fight.
eta: concur with Finlanderboy
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? If you run it as RAW for the dead condition:
Because even PFS is not "You have to let the player try any any cockamamie interactions of rules they think they can justify no matter how inane, rules lawyery, contrary to the rai, contrary to opposing raw, or how many house rules you'd have to make up to deal with the implications To whit...
The target reverts to the DYING condition
This isn't raw either.
This is also a rules question. It works the same in PFS as it does anywhere else. If your DMs had the sanity to not let you try this? Good for them.
|
|
"If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can't combine, apply the most severe effect."
You have the Dying condition.
You then get the Dead condition.
You removed the Dead condition.
You have the Dying condition.
eta:
A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.[/spoiler]
I do not get the debate over this. The rules are there and written out. If the developers wanted it effect only selected conditions or omit other conditions then they would have placed them in the ability.
I would argue it is homeruling to say otherwise. Then look dumbfounded at people that disagree.
Now debating what happens after someone takes the dead coniditon. That less clear.
Haha you can take someone's grappled condition?
That's an interesting question. There are multiple ways for characters to get the ability to grapple without gaining the "grappled" condition and its associated penalties, so I would say this is probably valid.
However, it would not change the fact that you are still held by the grappler who can still maintain the grapple and move you, do damage, pin you, etc. It would just mean that you don't take the penalties (-4 to Dex, -2 to attack, can't move, can't make AoOs, can't cast without concentration check, can't use two hands, etc.). Note that this is a really bad deal for the cleric, because for next X rounds, he has made himself really, really vulnerable and can't cast spells effectively.
There are more useful ways to free someone from being grappled.
|
|
The real problem with taking the dead condition from someone is a character that has the dead condition has the diehard feat and this domain ability is used to make them immune to death then they could keep fighting until the cleric comes back to life and kills them again, even if the dead character reaches negative infinity.
Also another issue with removing the dead condition, it allows breath of life to become much much more powerful (and useable out of combat).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.. yeah. No.I would expect that the vast majority of GMs will not let you treat dead as a condition for this ability.As PFS is run RAW, Dead is a condition and the player would have a valid complaint if the GM did not allow the ability to work as written.Why not? If you run it as RAW for the dead condition:
It's a 1 for 1 trade (I'm dead, you're not dead).
The target reverts to the DYING condition and still needs healing to positive HP. (Hilariously, they can keep failing stabilize checks and end up even more in the hole as they are immune to the Dead condition.)
The target, when healed to positive, has the prone condition AND dropped their weapon.
The target is going to die again.
"At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect."
To me, that says that if the cleric takes on the dead condition and someone else heals the formerly dead character, that condition had been "removed by another effect".
Because the "can't receive magical healing" restriction is part of the dead condition, when the dead condition is transferred, that limitation would go with it. The "not-dead" character can now be healed normally, and if the character is healed above -Con, then that would remove the dead condition. And this is actually even better than Breath of Life, because it's not limited to the round where the character died, and you can take more than one round to heal the character back to +Con.
If you plan to allow this as RAW, you can't pick half the ability as RAW and ignore the other half. With your reading, by RAW, we don't need Breath of Life or Raise Dead anymore: Every PC just dips a level or two into Cleric or Inquisitor for Family Subdomain, transfers the dead condition while someone else heals the dead guy. It will become the new Cure Light wand of PFS ("Dude, everybody has to do this to be a good group player!").
I think, in this case, common sense should override RAW. And I think it's pretty clear that RAI, the developers did not intend a first level domain power to replace a 5th level spell with a 1,000 gp component cost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is definitely one of those things where you need to set time aside at the beginning to make your case and live with whatever the GM rules.
Regardless of where you land on the mechanics, a player coming to a table with this in mind and not clearing it with the GM beforehand is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting interpretive use of the ability...
Two things that make me question its practical application with the Dead Condition:
1. Does a dead body still count as an "ally"? (I'm relatively certain that a dead body becomes an object, but haven't found anything indicating one way or the other if it remains an "ally" while dead)
2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition). Once the condition is removed, it could be interpreted that there is no additional mechanic to give you the hitpoints back.
-TimD
|
|
Fred gets the Blind condition.
Charlie Binding Ties the Blind. Fred can see, Charlie is Blinded.
Charlie drinks a Potion of Remove Blindness. Removing the condition.
BT wears off. Blindness does not revert to Fred as it has ended/been removed.
You need to remove the effect ON YOURSELF to prevent reversion.
So, if you are the cleric and used Binding Ties on a dead PC, healing that PC doesn't stop the death effect from returning and killing them outright. You need to remove the Dead condition ON THE CLERIC to prevent it from jumping back to the PC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to beat the DM over the head with raw should get you beat over the head with a core rulebook.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition).
Actually, it doesn't say that. The first sentence of the Dead condition reads: It is listing the ways a character can gain the Dead condition, not stating what happens once you receive it.
Trying to beat the DM over the head with raw should get you beat over the head with a core rulebook.
Your are right it should not. If someone gets upset enough to assualt someone over a rule they themselves are reading wrong and house ruling public play is not for them.
2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition).Actually, it doesn't say that. The first sentence of the Dead condition reads: It is listing the ways a character can gain the Dead condition, not stating what happens once you receive it.
Valid. Doesn't make it any less odd, but valid. :)
-TimD
|
Eh, I'd probably advise people against using this ability outside of their typical gaming group. I like this ability because it's very open ended and allows for a ton of creative usages. But for PFS there are too many GMs that are not going to allow it the flexibility that makes it so interesting.
I like Greg's take on the grappled condition, and I think that's how I would rule it if I were running a homebrew. I don't think it's the same for death though, that gets a little too complicated. Especially when you consider that players have different con scores, and some players have feats like diehard. Simple is probably better here.
By RAW, it let's you take the death condition. Why is that a problem? They party still has to clear the condition. The cleric gets negative levels when raised. The PC who died still needs to get healed (because they're now "dying" but immune to "dead") so they don't die immediately upon Binding Ties expiring, or the Cleric being raised. Not seeing the issue.
Now I'm not too sure how this works with permanent negative levels from Raise Dead. It seems like this ability would let you clear both negative levels on anyone other than the Family Cleric because the cleric would take one negative level, and then each PC could use a separate Restoration. That'd be pretty cool.
EDIT: Also, I'm really hoping this doesn't turn into another PotP.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well hopefully this doesn't come up anytime soon, but using the "dead condition" example I'd probably rule the cleric would effectively die of the same mechanic as the other team member. (negative HP, 0 CON, etc..)
If you're going to have the HP damage be part of what the cleric takes on, make sure it's also part of what the target is relieved of. Otherwise, it makes using a class ability into a bad thing, which is usually a red flag that something's gone wrong on the interpreting.
As for Dead: The condition states: "The character's soul leaves his body." No reason for it to just come back when the Dead condition is removed. As for the game effects of that consequence... GM discretion :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm... it makes the cleric a zombie... ahh, what the heck, sure!
|
|
As for Dead: The condition states: "The character's soul leaves his body." No reason for it to just come back when the Dead condition is removed. As for the game effects of that consequence... GM discretion :)
The only reason might be
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. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
But yeah, I also don't think it's unreasonable to say this doesn't work for death. It's honestly more intuitive that way, anyway.
Fred gets the Blind condition.
Charlie Binding Ties the Blind. Fred can see, Charlie is Blinded.
Charlie drinks a Potion of Remove Blindness. Removing the condition.
BT wears off. Blindness does not revert to Fred as it has ended/been removed.
You need to remove the effect ON YOURSELF to prevent reversion.
So, if you are the cleric and used Binding Ties on a dead PC, healing that PC doesn't stop the death effect from returning and killing them outright. You need to remove the Dead condition ON THE CLERIC to prevent it from jumping back to the PC.
That's not clear from the wording of the ability:
"At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect. "There's nothing qualifying when, were, or how the condition "is removed". One could also argue that since the original character is no longer at -Con hp, the dead condition "has ended".
1) Fred is a barbarian who drops out of rage after 2 rounds and gets the fatigued condition for 4 rounds.
2) Charlie Binding Ties the fatigued condition. Fred is not fatigued, and Charlie is fatigued.
3) Three rounds later, Binding Ties wears off, but the fatigued condition ended normally on that round. Neither Fred nor Charlie is fatigued.
So is "dead" a condition that is always "removed" or can it be considered to "end"? To answer that, you'd have to crawl through every word of every spell and magic item that can affect creatures at negative HP or otherwise kill characters. If you find a single one that could possibly be construed to support the concept of "ending" the condition, a player will argue for it.
Then there's the problem of taking the "dead condition" out of context from "dying" and "unconscious".
Charlie can only transfer one condition, so he takes on only the dead condition, not the dying or unconscious conditions.
Fred is still unconscious and dying, since Charlie only transferred the condition--not any of the damage that caused the condition.
Now, in the "dead condition", it doesn't specifically say that you can't take any actions, so can Charlie still act normally?
Clearly, that makes no sense. Unfortunately, in rules questions, "establishing a precedent" is often the equivalent of "arguing to logical absurdity". I always try to consider all possible implications before I decide on a ruling.
This is definitely one of those things where you need to set time aside at the beginning to make your case and live with whatever the GM rules.
Regardless of where you land on the mechanics, a player coming to a table with this in mind and not clearing it with the GM beforehand is a problem.
This seems like the most reasonable solution to the problem, I'd still like official clarification from someone but the thread is kind of just repeating the same arguments so it's unlikely.
|
|
Haha you can take someone's grappled condition?That's an interesting question. There are multiple ways for characters to get the ability to grapple without gaining the "grappled" condition and its associated penalties, so I would say this is probably valid.
However, it would not change the fact that you are still held by the grappler who can still maintain the grapple and move you, do damage, pin you, etc. It would just mean that you don't take the penalties (-4 to Dex, -2 to attack, can't move, can't make AoOs, can't cast without concentration check, can't use two hands, etc.). Note that this is a really bad deal for the cleric, because for next X rounds, he has made himself really, really vulnerable and can't cast spells effectively.
There are more useful ways to free someone from being grappled.
Still held by the grappler, sure.
Maintain a grapple? No, since you no longer have the grappled condition and are, indeed, immune to it.Move the not grappled but held target to a pin? I don't think so, since you have to have your target grappled before you can pin them.
Move you? No, because you can only do that to a grappled target, and you aren't grappled.
Damage you? Can't maintain agrapple and do damage as part of a maintain, if you aren't being grappled.
Now, the silly part is, can the grappler maintain his grapple, and do any of the maintain stuff to the cleric who has the condition? And how do you determine what the DC is for that?
Would he have to let go of the now-immune former grapplee, which would, presumably, also end the effect on the Cleric, and move to the Cleric to start a new grapple?
I think the ability is not well written, and needs serious errata before someone suffers a head injury form trying to figure out these corner cases...
Even if that would not be true, the dead condition doesn't say that you are only dead when your HP is too low. This is one way to acquire the condition, but not the only one. So even after magical healing, the ally would still drop dead after X rounds (where X is equal to the clerics caster level, because he cannot end it prematurely).
"Nothing in the Dead condition states that bringing your HP back up makes you not-dead." In fact, Breath of Life implies that other magical healing, even if somehow applied to your dead body, won't bring you back.
This is a good interpretation; it still allows for some shenanigans, but it makes the guy who died still dead at the end of the fight.
Haha you can take someone's grappled condition?That's an interesting question. There are multiple ways for characters to get the ability to grapple without gaining the "grappled" condition and its associated penalties, so I would say this is probably valid.
However, it would not change the fact that you are still held by the grappler who can still maintain the grapple and move you, do damage, pin you, etc. It would just mean that you don't take the penalties (-4 to Dex, -2 to attack, can't move, can't make AoOs, can't cast without concentration check, can't use two hands, etc.). Note that this is a really bad deal for the cleric, because for next X rounds, he has made himself really, really vulnerable and can't cast spells effectively.
There are more useful ways to free someone from being grappled.
Still held by the grappler, sure.
Maintain a grapple? No, since you no longer have the grappled condition and are, indeed, immune to it.
Move the not grappled but held target to a pin? I don't think so, since you have to have your target grappled before you can pin them.
Move you? No, because you can only do that to a grappled target, and you aren't grappled.
Damage you? Can't maintain agrapple and do damage as part of a maintain, if you aren't being grappled.Now, the silly part is, can the grappler maintain his grapple, and do any of the maintain stuff to the cleric who has the condition? And how do you determine what the DC is for that?
Would he have to let go of the now-immune former grapplee, which would, presumably, also end the effect on the Cleric, and move to the Cleric to start a new grapple?
I think the ability is not well written, and needs serious errata before someone suffers a head injury form trying to figure out these corner cases...
Just going to hop back in for a second. The grappled condition is not a perquisite for grappling, rather it's a consequence of it. There are abilities in pathfinder (white haired witch's hair) that allow you to grapple creatures without gaining the grappling condition yourself. If this ability did let you take the grappled condition it would merely allow them to grapple without those downsides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition).Actually, it doesn't say that. The first sentence of the Dead condition reads: It is listing the ways a character can gain the Dead condition, not stating what happens once you receive it.
You need to do a bit of digging, but:
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
|
Wait... if a Cleric transfers the dead condition to himself... won't that kill him (the cleric)? And once he is dead the dead condition snaps back to the ally and the ally is now dead again too?
So if a cleric uses this on a dead party member, won't that just automatically kill off both of them?
I mean dead is dead right? You can cast cure spells on a corpse and get to to +1000hp, but the corpse is still dead?
Thats what I figured would happen as well.
Why are people fighting the transferred dead condition?
It temporary trades that condition. In the end the player will still be dead.
But as you now know that he will be dead the druid can be ready with a breath of life the second time.
Wait... if a Cleric transfers the dead condition to himself... won't that kill him (the cleric)? And once he is dead the dead condition snaps back to the ally and the ally is now dead again too?
So if a cleric uses this on a dead party member, won't that just automatically kill off both of them?
I mean dead is dead right? You can cast cure spells on a corpse and get to to +1000hp, but the corpse is still dead?
But the condition doesn't snap back when the cleric is dead, it snaps back when the duration ends.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition).Actually, it doesn't say that. The first sentence of the Dead condition reads: It is listing the ways a character can gain the Dead condition, not stating what happens once you receive it.You need to do a bit of digging, but:
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
Huh. Is that CRB? Bestiary?
Huh. Is that CRB? Bestiary?2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition).Actually, it doesn't say that. The first sentence of the Dead condition reads: It is listing the ways a character can gain the Dead condition, not stating what happens once you receive it.You need to do a bit of digging, but:
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
CRB in the glossary. It's one of the notations under the heading of Death Attacks.
Huh. Is that CRB? Bestiary?2. Once you take the "Dead" condition, you are reduced to neg con (at least / as defined by the Dead Condition).Actually, it doesn't say that. The first sentence of the Dead condition reads: It is listing the ways a character can gain the Dead condition, not stating what happens once you receive it.You need to do a bit of digging, but:
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
Sniggevert nailed it. Under Death Attacks (death attacks). The full entry (for context):
Death Attacks
In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the effect, but if the save fails, the creature takes a large amount of damage, which might cause it to die instantly.* Raise dead doesn't work on someone killed by a death attack or effect.
* Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
* In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
* The spell death ward protects against these attacks.
Haha you can take someone's grappled condition?...this is a really bad deal for the cleric, because for next X rounds, he has made himself really, really vulnerable and can't cast spells effectively. There are more useful ways to free someone from being grappled.
Also, what kind of cleric steals the grappled condition from an ally? There’s a better solution: group hugs!
|
|
But the condition doesn't snap back when the cleric is dead, it snaps back when the duration ends.Wait... if a Cleric transfers the dead condition to himself... won't that kill him (the cleric)? And once he is dead the dead condition snaps back to the ally and the ally is now dead again too?
So if a cleric uses this on a dead party member, won't that just automatically kill off both of them?
I mean dead is dead right? You can cast cure spells on a corpse and get to to +1000hp, but the corpse is still dead?
Still... that's 2 dead party members.
The Ally will keep going for a couple of rounds more... but then he's dead too?
And I suppose breath of life would have to be used on the cleric, but since he is dead, he will need another player to cast it on him.