|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
According to the Sorcerer Impossible Bloodline Arcana it states:
Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.
I am the GM and the way I read it and understand it is that all spells that affect "living creatures" such as heal spells and other spells which target "living creatures" can now be cast upon a construct and affect them. Basically any spell that could affect a living creature can be cast on a construct, but their immunities and base construct traits still apply (except for being susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion), but that isn't in contention).
However my player believes that how that reads is that a construct is now considered a "living creature" and are NO LONGER immune to bleed, disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, stunning, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, or nonlethal damage, and Fort saves. Basically they are considered flesh and blood and all construct immunity traits are removed when using spells and this bloodline.
Obviously there is a huge difference between these two assumptions. Both of us have good points/arguments as to who is right. Does anyone have any insight on this one? Please let me know, thanks.
|
It seems pretty straight forward. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. Nothing else. Only spells.The bloodline doesn't say anything about removing the creature type or inherent immunities.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that this ability doesn't seem to do anything to allow constructs to be affected by mind-affecting effects (unless the specific spell targets a living creature or creatures). I stand corrected.
|
|
It seems pretty straight forward. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. Nothing else. Only spells.The bloodline doesn't say anything about removing the creature type or inherent immunities.
Here is the full ability in question:
You would think your explanation would make sense ... but why would anyone take this ability if you can't affect constructs with spells that affect living creatures? There are very very few spells in which this would apply, hence my PCs argument is constructs would be treated as living creatures, and living creatures are not immune to that huge list of traits. Hence, constructs are now treated as "living creatures" and susceptible to those abilities now (stun, fort saves, etc.).
I need a bit more...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines -from-paizo/impossible-sorcererYou would think your explanation would make sense ... but why would anyone take this ability if you can't affect constructs with spells that affect living creatures? There are very very few spells in which this would apply, hence my PCs argument is constructs would be treated as living creatures, and living creatures are not immune to that huge list of traits. Hence, constructs are now treated as "living creatures" and susceptible to those abilities now (stun, fort saves, etc.).
I need a bit more...
It allows you to use Hold Monster, Geas/Quest, and other living-only compulsion spells. It's not a separate thing that lets you do more useful stuff; it's mostly there to make the first part not be useless. (Except on most golems, which are still immune to magic.)
|
|
Everything you need is right in the ability description.
Constructs treat Enchantment(compulsion) spells as if they were not mind-affecting.
Constructs are treated as living creatures when determining which spells affect them.
The ability allows you to target constructs with compulsion spells, and to target them with spells that only affect living creatures. Examples: Binding, Bleed, Cause Fear, Confusion, Deep Slumber, Demand, Fear, etc, etc. Many of these spells are Enchantment (compulsion) spells, but several are necromancy and others.
This ability isn't intended to nerf all construct abilities. It's simply to allow a spellcaster to affect constructs with a group of spells constructs are normally immune to. Nothing about the ability suggests that a spellcaster can now ignore ALL of a construct's magical resistances. For example, Necromancy spells that target living creatures but allow a Fort save STILL don't affect constructs. Because constructs are immune to effects that allow a fort save unless that effect also affects objects.
Check it against other construct abilities:
Does Impossible Sorcerer remove a construct's low-light vision?
Darkvision?
Immunity to massive damage?
Immunity to raise/resurrect?
Bonus HP due to size?
Weapon proficiencies?
Lack of need to eat, breathe, or sleep?
These are all a part of having the construct type, as are immunity to mind-affecting effects, disease, death effects, etc, etc. Impossible Sorcerer spells out exactly what it does: Allows the Impossible Sorcerer to affect constructs with Enchantment (compulsion) spells and other spells that only target living creatures (provided the construct isn't immune to those spell effects for some other reason).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Constructs treat Enchantment(compulsion) spells as if they were not mind-affecting.
Constructs are treated as living creatures when determining which spells affect them.The ability allows you to target constructs with compulsion spells, and to target them with spells that only affect living creatures. Examples: Binding, Bleed, Cause Fear, Confusion, Deep Slumber, Demand, Fear, etc, etc. Many of these spells are Enchantment (compulsion) spells, but several are necromancy and others.
This ability isn't intended to nerf all construct abilities. It's simply to allow a spellcaster to affect constructs with a group of spells constructs are normally immune to.
Let's see if I can ask a question that will clear up the problem.
Karina, an impossible sorcerer, casts hold monster on a construct. Hold monster is an enchantment (compulsion) that targets a living creature and explicitly adds Paralysis status to the target for its duration.
1. The BLA's first clause triggers: the construct's type immunity to mind-affecting does not apply here.
2. The BLA's second clause triggers: the construct counts as a living creature, and is thus a valid target.
3. The construct's type immunity to paralysis {does, does not} apply.
If the answer is "does," then the BLA is potentially a liability. (Consider the case of a circle of death spell cast on a mixed group of 5HD robot soldiers led by 6th level human marines. Without the BLA, you exclude the robots and hit the marines. With the BLA, you include the robots who have type immunity to both Death Effects and necromancy... and wind up hitting nothing because the robots absorbed the entire attack.)
I'm playing an impossible bloodlines sorcerer at present in Iron Gods. This ability only works with regards to "compulsion" effects IE: charm person and the like. It would have no effect on spells such as Cure Light Wounds, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing an impossible bloodlines sorcerer at present in Iron Gods. This ability only works with regards to "compulsion" effects IE: charm person and the like. It would have no effect on spells such as Cure Light Wounds, etc.
There are two separate clauses to the arcana.
First: constructs are subject to your enchantment (compulsion) spells. This is an exception to constructs' type immunity to mind-affecting.
Second: constructs are considered "living creatures" for purposes of your spells. So your spells that specify living spells as targets (eg, circle of death) would target them; your spells that behave differently on living creatures or other targets (eg, cure wounds) would target constructs as though they were living.
Charm monster wouldn't work, because the first clause doesn't bypass type immunity to enchantment (charm) as mind-affecting. Charm person additionally wouldn't work because it targets humanoids.
Cure light wounds would work without any problem, since constructs don't have type immunity to conjuration or conj (healing) effects. Here the second clause applies: constructs are considered living creatures by your spells, and are therefore healed by your cure wounds spell.
-----
Other than cure wounds, the major problem is that spells that specify "living creatures" tend to do so in a way that is normally affected by one or more construct type immunities. Hence my two examples.
Hold monster is ench (compulsion) = ok; it targets living = ok; it adds Paralysis status = ?not ok.
Circle of death targets living = ok; it is necromancy = ?not ok; it adds Dead (killed by Death Effect) status = ?not ok. (For even more fun, the status allows a Fort Save and cannot target objects = ?not ok!)
It seems that if the immunities hold, that the second clause is more of a liability than an asset due to constructs becoming able to absorb and still ignore effects.