Round 1 - shadow drops character to 0 strength and they die per the shadow ability. 1d4 round timer starts on the shadows initiative with round 2 and goes through round round 5 potentially.
The only hope of the character is a restoration spell cast for the 3 round casting time, with 25% chance of it not going off in time. The wording on the targeting of BoL and Rest are the same, "target creature", while raise dead does specify "target dead creature", so being dead does not necessarily exclude from restoration.
Ruling in question that are relevant here.
***Is shadow damage tracked beyond 0. so say someone was at 1 strength and they get hit for 7 damage. Does it stop at 0 or does it need to be healed up to 1 from -6.
***Can a potion of lesser restoration be allied to a dead person. RAW, it specifically gives rules for pouring down throat of an unconscious person.
***Does restoration work on dead bodies
Why tracking rounds should start on round 2?
The character drop dead, the 1d4 die is rolled immediately and you start the count.
When the initiative cont at which the character dropped dead come 1 round has elapsed and the second has started.@Fergie: about your 3.5 comment, what is more accumulation that the damage reducing the actual score? That it what it did in the 3 and 3.5 version of D&D.
Duration is counted from the end of a round until right before the initiative of the same person on the next round. It's in either the combat or magic section I forget which.
|
Duration is counted from the end of a round until right before the initiative of the same person on the next round. It's in either the combat or magic section I forget which.
Citation please, as I haven't ever seen it run that way for spells or timed effects. The only exception I know are the effects that stop regeneration.
Duration is counted from the end of a round until right before the initiative of the same person on the next round. It's in either the combat or magic section I forget which.Citation please, as I haven't ever seen it run that way for spells or timed effects. The only exception I know are the effects that stop regeneration.
No problem:
When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
I think people forget to refer back to all the specific rules in the game. You're given the DEAD condition. You get to continue on with all the things that happen to you, because you're just in the condition. Some spells stop happening because you're dead, and some stick around.
IF YOU CAN'T USE CREATURE TOUCHED SPELLS ON A CORPSE, THEN BREATH OF LIFE NEVER DOES ANYTHING, EVER!
For the SHADOW STRENGTH DAMAGE, you need to prove you track it separately, and that it isn't like you take two slashing, and two fire damage, which just results in you taking 4 damage when it's all said and done.
Capslockrage aside, that's actually a really good point.
I think I've been convinced that some status effects persist during death, and that some can wear off over time even while dead.
That certainly changes things.
|
I find it more interesting that is someone dies from a shadow or one of its ilk, then they are perma-dead. Cause it is most likely that if BoL doesn't work, then no one will be standing around casting raise dead on them. Do people even memorize that normally?
They either learn it as oracles so they can cast it spontaneously. Or most 9th level clerics select that as the first 5th level spell they memorise.
Because if you think it through, putting it on a scroll is useless.
Meh. My rogue is Runelords has carried a scroll of it around from time to time, just in case the cleric keels over, so I wouldn't say useless. Just rare. And I have a suspicion that most new to lvl 9 clerics aren't wandering about with it memorized instead of something like flamestrike. I at least always considered raise dead as something you memorize and cast after the dead condition has been added to someone.
No problem:When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.Source
This is absolute the RAW. However, I would submit that would mean that if you acted right after a foe, but on the same initiative count, then any one-round affect you apply would never do anything.
R1 init 16: Bad guy goes.
R1 init 16: You daze bad guy. He fails his save.
R2 init 15: Daze ends (15 is the last whole number before 16).
R2 init 16: Bad guy goes. What daze?
Obviously that isn't RAI, so I think that particular bit of text is problematic. YMMV. :)
No problem:When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.SourceThis is absolute the RAW. However, I would submit that would mean that if you acted right after a foe, but on the same initiative count, then any one-round affect you apply would never do anything.
R1 init 16: Bad guy goes.
R1 init 16: You daze bad guy. He fails his save.R2 init 15: Daze ends (15 is the last whole number before 16).
R2 init 16: Bad guy goes. What daze?Obviously that isn't RAI, so I think that particular bit of text is problematic. YMMV. :)
Wow, I never noticed that before; definitely not RAI, but that is by RAW what would happen. Has anyone ever picked up on this problem, or do you think it happens so rarely that no one catches it?
Meh. My rogue is Runelords has carried a scroll of it around from time to time, just in case the cleric keels over, so I wouldn't say useless. Just rare. And I have a suspicion that most new to lvl 9 clerics aren't wandering about with it memorized instead of something like flamestrike. I at least always considered raise dead as something you memorize and cast after the dead condition has been added to someone.I find it more interesting that is someone dies from a shadow or one of its ilk, then they are perma-dead. Cause it is most likely that if BoL doesn't work, then no one will be standing around casting raise dead on them. Do people even memorize that normally?
They either learn it as oracles so they can cast it spontaneously. Or most 9th level clerics select that as the first 5th level spell they memorise.
Because if you think it through, putting it on a scroll is useless.
Lazar's saying it's useless because the action it takes to fish out the scroll can cost you your window of opportunity to actually cast the spell.
As least, I assume that's why Lazar's saying it's pointless to put breath of life on a scroll. Because when you do need it, you need it right now.
No problem:When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.SourceThis is absolute the RAW. However, I would submit that would mean that if you acted right after a foe, but on the same initiative count, then any one-round affect you apply would never do anything.
R1 init 16: Bad guy goes.
R1 init 16: You daze bad guy. He fails his save.R2 init 15: Daze ends (15 is the last whole number before 16).
R2 init 16: Bad guy goes. What daze?Obviously that isn't RAI, so I think that particular bit of text is problematic. YMMV. :)
I would argue it is RAW and RAI -- it prevents monk stun lock for example.
Raise dead doesn't work that way LazarX.
I think he meant a scroll of Raise Dead not BoL.
|
|
Wow, I never noticed that before; definitely not RAI, but that is by RAW what would happen. Has anyone ever picked up on this problem, or do you think it happens so rarely that no one catches it?
No problem:When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.SourceThis is absolute the RAW. However, I would submit that would mean that if you acted right after a foe, but on the same initiative count, then any one-round affect you apply would never do anything.
R1 init 16: Bad guy goes.
R1 init 16: You daze bad guy. He fails his save.R2 init 15: Daze ends (15 is the last whole number before 16).
R2 init 16: Bad guy goes. What daze?Obviously that isn't RAI, so I think that particular bit of text is problematic. YMMV. :)
This is why I like the fact that I do all my gaming on TTopRPG virtual tabletop. Initiatives are done to the thousandths place, so there really are no ties and this rule anomaly would never have an effect. It could be implied that the "count" for tied initiatives have a secondary count of dexterity bonus, thus making the above be more of:
R1 - init 16.1 bad guy goes
R1 - init 16.2 Daze cast, save failed
R2 - init 16.1 Guy dazed and spell ends
R2 - init 16.2 caster does something
|
No problem:When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.SourceThis is absolute the RAW. However, I would submit that would mean that if you acted right after a foe, but on the same initiative count, then any one-round affect you apply would never do anything.
R1 init 16: Bad guy goes.
R1 init 16: You daze bad guy. He fails his save.R2 init 15: Daze ends (15 is the last whole number before 16).
R2 init 16: Bad guy goes. What daze?Obviously that isn't RAI, so I think that particular bit of text is problematic. YMMV. :)
Well, first of all, initiative counts down, so it would end on 17 if we're gonna be lawyering. Second of all, it's a jerk move by the GM IMO.
This little loophole is easily rectified by declaring, "I choose to delay until the beginning of initiative count 15. And the rest of you allies on 16 might want to do likewise," before you cast daze. Maybe some other baddies also on 16 but after you get to go, but the likelihood of lots of baddies on the same init is low (unless you have a GM who doesn't roll for every NPC even after you remind him of just how awful it would be for 6 ghasts to act at one time).
By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normall yon whatever initiative count you decide to act. <//> You can specify this new initiative result...
*Emphasis added
Though personally, I would not be the first one to make the rules that granular. If the GM pulled crap like that on you, then you have to be the lawyer. In general, at my tables, I rule that the event ends right before that person's turn - just like a summon or a full-round action. But that's because I'm not out to screw players out of a spell slot because of a quirk of the rules, and I don't expect my players to have encyclopedic knowledge of such rules at the outset of the game.
|
|
This is why I like the fact that I do all my gaming on TTopRPG virtual tabletop. Initiatives are done to the thousandths place, so there really are no ties and this rule anomaly would never have an effect. It could be implied that the "count" for tied initiatives have a secondary count of dexterity bonus, thus making the above be more of:
R1 - init 16.1 bad guy goes
R1 - init 16.2 Daze cast, save failed
R2 - init 16.1 Guy dazed and spell ends
R2 - init 16.2 caster does something
A feature of a VTT doesn't change RAW. If a GM decided he was going to play it the way it's been described, your decimals wouldn't matter. But I would also start being creative with delaying before I cast.
Well, first of all, initiative counts down, so it would end on 17 if we're gonna be lawyering.
You're correct of course.
Second of all, it's a jerk move by the GM IMO.
The thing is, how would you fix it without fractional initiative and/or giving every ongoing spell an initiative score?
|
|
If a GM decided to brainlessly go RAW, without regard for sense, they would not have a gaming group. This is a situation where no GM would ever run the game in such a way where spells/abilities could be nullified by a loophole caused by duplicate numbers.
And yes, I put my numbers in the wrong order with regards to decending initiative numbers and the tenths place. sorry to offend you so.
I am so, so sorry
Surely there is no need to call each other brainless-by-proxy? :-/
I think people forget to refer back to all the specific rules in the game. You're given the DEAD condition. You get to continue on with all the things that happen to you, because you're just in the condition. Some spells stop happening because you're dead, and some stick around.
IF YOU CAN'T USE CREATURE TOUCHED SPELLS ON A CORPSE, THEN BREATH OF LIFE NEVER DOES ANYTHING, EVER!
For the SHADOW STRENGTH DAMAGE, you need to prove you track it separately, and that it isn't like you take two slashing, and two fire damage, which just results in you taking 4 damage when it's all said and done.
Capslockrage aside, that's actually a really good point.
I think I've been convinced that some status effects persist during death, and that some can wear off over time even while dead.
That certainly changes things.
It's utterly wrong on both points. First... general rules are superseded by specific ones. That's why you can cast Raise Dead and Breath of Life on a corpse, but not cure light wounds.
Second, Strength Damage can stack just like Hit Point damage does. You are getting strength damage, not a strength penalty.
Strong language with "utterly wrong". Could you please elaborate better on how I'm utterly wrong?
Breath of Life is creature touched, and doesn't say dead creature touched. Why couldn't you use cure light on a dead creature? The creature would still be dead, and while thinking about it, this could be helpful for getting breath of life to work if someone was worried the dead creature wouldn't have enough HP after it is used on the creature.
Dead creature touched is just a more specific requirement for the spell target, rather than just a creature touched.
I don't think I phrased my example with the damage well. My point with the damage is that even though you might take some slashing and some fire on the attack, once you resolve DR, resistance, and other things, you apply the damage as just damage. The difference between ability damage and hp damage is that ability damage you add up, whereas hp damage you reduce a maximum score.
As a reminder, dead is just a condition, just like being prone, or pinned.
|
|
Well, first of all, initiative counts down, so it would end on 17 if we're gonna be lawyering.You're correct of course.
Second of all, it's a jerk move by the GM IMO.The thing is, how would you fix it without fractional initiative and/or giving every ongoing spell an initiative score?
By interpreting it correctly:
Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.It might require a tag in the combat pad, if the caster does anything that changes his initiative, but, after the setup, there is no initiative numbers in initiative, there is just order.
So something that lasts a certain number of rounds would last from when it was inflicted to the time just before the same position in the initiative order it was applied.
Honestly, once you start having Readies go off, and Delays happen, the initiative numbers have no bearing. Other than tracking round numbers, in case there are things that happen after a certain amount of time has passed.
To the OP: The Strength damage done by Shadows is called out as a Negative Energy effect for the purposes of spells like Death Ward, which would block the damage from happening at all.
The thing is, how would you fix it without fractional initiative and/or giving every ongoing spell an initiative score?By interpreting it correctly:
Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
It might require a tag in the combat pad, if the caster does anything that changes his initiative, but, after the setup, there is no initiative numbers in initiative, there is just order.So something that lasts a certain number of rounds would last from when it was inflicted to the time just before the same position in the initiative order it was applied.
Honestly, once you start having Readies go off, and Delays happen, the initiative numbers have no bearing. Other than tracking round numbers, in case there are things that happen after a certain amount of time has passed.
The problem with the rule is that every place else, order is what matters, but the rule explicitly references initiative count (rather than order). As a result, one must effectively give the ongoing effect it's own initiative score ("or a tag in the combat pad," as you put it) in order to keep the order straight.
In other words, "interpreting it correctly" requires NOT following the rule (which explicitly references the initiative count). That's the hallmark of a problem rule.
The thing is, how would you fix it without fractional initiative and/or giving every ongoing spell an initiative score?
We just handle it in a way that 1 round is over when the one using the effect takes his next action (or has the opportunity to do it.)
So if the target is at 16 and the caster is at 16 but after the target then the effect ends after the target acted but before the caster acts. Pretty simple and always worked.
The target could delay to act after the effect ended unless the effect keeps him from acting (he is stunned).
The caster could delay but the effect would still end because he had the opportunity to act. Or better when he has a chance to decide what to do the effect is already over.
Edit: only if both delay and the effect lasts longer than 1 round it becomes more complicated and the effects initiative needs to be tracked. But that doesn't happen often.
Edit2: You are right that this is not really RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to argue on either side of this (I was Overseer for the event this particular situation took place, and so partially involved in the discussion at the time) but some things of note...
- As was pointed out, BoL has a call out in its spell description about what it can do to what, as the 'Target:'s text would get awfully long an explanation when its intended to be a summary. (as noted above, not arguing either way, just pointing out how it can be read)
- The Death condition talks about the potential of being brought back to life, and it says that you will either be fully restored or brought back to your previous condition, depending on the wording of the spell or effect that caused you to be alive.
The second point can speak to the 'Do I still have the Shadow's special condition?' conversation from the point of view of 'But death would clear it' - it does not inherently. This does not, however, speak to any discussions/arguments that it is an ongoing condition and not an instantaneous 'check at the time of reduction'. (This is a point I need to think about myself, for future applications, unless and until a more formal call comes along. Not sure how I will fall yet myself.)
I know this doesn't, on its own, push the conversation in either direction particularly well, but they are points to consider and in combination with other points, might bring folks to a clearer conclusion.
|
|
Duration is counted from the end of a round until right before the initiative of the same person on the next round. It's in either the combat or magic section I forget which.Citation please, as I haven't ever seen it run that way for spells or timed effects. The only exception I know are the effects that stop regeneration.
No problem:
When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.Source
?
Abraham spalding = Duration is counted from the end of a round untilAbraham spalding rule citation= they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round
It start from the initiative count, not the end of the round.
Fair enough on the confusion. I didn't mean the end of the actual round, but that is what I said.
The more important part is when it ends -- which is to say the next round.
So if you died and got unlucky and it's 1 round until the shadow springs up the shadow still won't appear this round.
|
|
Well, first of all, initiative counts down, so it would end on 17 if we're gonna be lawyering.You're correct of course.
Second of all, it's a jerk move by the GM IMO.The thing is, how would you fix it without fractional initiative and/or giving every ongoing spell an initiative score?
You simply put them in sequence, the rules already do that when they resolve initiative ties.
Init. 16 NPC rogue with +4 bonus to initiative
then
Init. 16 wizard with +1 to initiative
You have a nice, clear sequence and the spells end just before the wizard initiative.
It don't really matter if the difference in initiative is simply a better modifier or even winning the die roll to see who goes first, or it is 20 initiative points, what matter is who goes first and who goes second.
|
|
Fair enough on the confusion. I didn't mean the end of the actual round, but that is what I said.
The more important part is when it ends -- which is to say the next round.
So if you died and got unlucky and it's 1 round until the shadow springs up the shadow still won't appear this round.
It would appear exactly after 1 round from the moment the character died.
The problem is that you missed what I was commenting too:
Round 1 - shadow drops character to 0 strength and they die per the shadow ability. 1d4 round timer starts on the shadows initiative with round 2 and goes through round round 5 potentially.
The 1d4 timer start immediately, not on round 2.
|
|
Strong language with "utterly wrong". Could you please elaborate better on how I'm utterly wrong?
Breath of Life is creature touched, and doesn't say dead creature touched. Why couldn't you use cure light on a dead creature? The creature would still be dead, and while thinking about it, this could be helpful for getting breath of life to work if someone was worried the dead creature wouldn't have enough HP after it is used on the creature.
Dead creature touched is just a more specific requirement for the spell target, rather than just a creature touched.
I don't think I phrased my example with the damage well. My point with the damage is that even though you might take some slashing and some fire on the attack, once you resolve DR, resistance, and other things, you apply the damage as just damage. The difference between ability damage and hp damage is that ability damage you add up, whereas hp damage you reduce a maximum score.
As a reminder, dead is just a condition, just like being prone, or pinned.
Rules, HF:
Cure Light Wounds
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
No CLW on dead creatures.
Breath of Life
Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature.
A very specific exception.
I do need to correct myself in regards to what I said with the dead condition and magical healing. Spells like cure light I believe fall under magical healing, and couldn't be preformed.
Edit: ninja'd
Edit 2: for clarity, clw can be used on a dead creature, but there will be no benefits from the healing.
To make people aware, raise dead is specifically dead creature touched.
Breath of life is creature touched.
Slay living is living creature touched.
It's also interesting the OR in the dead condition where you come back with full hp, or to its condition at the time of death.
what matters is who goes first and who goes second.
Exactly. But in order to preserve that order when characters change their initiative, you have to track the spell separately. There is no allowance in the rules for doing this; the rules use the number, with is not sufficiently granular.
Fair enough on the confusion. I didn't mean the end of the actual round, but that is what I said.
The more important part is when it ends -- which is to say the next round.
So if you died and got unlucky and it's 1 round until the shadow springs up the shadow still won't appear this round.
It would appear exactly after 1 round from the moment the character died.
The problem is that you missed what I was commenting too:
Round 1 - shadow drops character to 0 strength and they die per the shadow ability. 1d4 round timer starts on the shadows initiative with round 2 and goes through round round 5 potentially.The 1d4 timer start immediately, not on round 2.
Oh yeah, I would also argue that being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening. That happens regardless of anything else. In fact multiple deaths should cause multiple shadows.
The player would be multiple shadows though. I like to go for rai unless dead condition being removed would actually solve this.
Oh yeah, I would also argue that being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening. That happens regardless of anything else. In fact multiple deaths should cause multiple shadows.Fair enough on the confusion. I didn't mean the end of the actual round, but that is what I said.
The more important part is when it ends -- which is to say the next round.
So if you died and got unlucky and it's 1 round until the shadow springs up the shadow still won't appear this round.
It would appear exactly after 1 round from the moment the character died.
The problem is that you missed what I was commenting too:
Round 1 - shadow drops character to 0 strength and they die per the shadow ability. 1d4 round timer starts on the shadows initiative with round 2 and goes through round round 5 potentially.The 1d4 timer start immediately, not on round 2.
Wait...are you saying that if someone cast a Raise Dead or used Ultimate Mercy during those 4 rounds, the character would still become a shadow? Or a shadow would spawn, just not necessarily the character becoming a shadow?
Wait...are you saying that if someone cast a Raise Dead or used Ultimate Mercy during those 4 rounds, the character would still become a shadow? Or a shadow would spawn, just not necessarily the character becoming a shadow?Oh yeah, I would also argue that being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening. That happens regardless of anything else. In fact multiple deaths should cause multiple shadows.Fair enough on the confusion. I didn't mean the end of the actual round, but that is what I said.
The more important part is when it ends -- which is to say the next round.
So if you died and got unlucky and it's 1 round until the shadow springs up the shadow still won't appear this round.
It would appear exactly after 1 round from the moment the character died.
The problem is that you missed what I was commenting too:
Round 1 - shadow drops character to 0 strength and they die per the shadow ability. 1d4 round timer starts on the shadows initiative with round 2 and goes through round round 5 potentially.The 1d4 timer start immediately, not on round 2.
Huh. I wouldn't go with that interpretation at all.
BUT: If a person is killed by their own shadow right after a battle res, do we declare that the GM has won?
The creature slays itself, and the first copy would control the second copy. CRAZY
Oh yeah, I would also argue that being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening. That happens regardless of anything else. In fact multiple deaths should cause multiple shadows.Wait...are you saying that if someone cast a Raise Dead or used Ultimate Mercy during those 4 rounds, the character would still become a shadow? Or a shadow would spawn, just not necessarily the character becoming a shadow?Huh. I wouldn't go with that interpretation at all.
BUT: If a person is killed by their own shadow right after a battle res, do we declare that the GM has won?
I was asking based on the comment "being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening".
So if I drop Sanctify Corpse on someone killed by a shadow, drag their body back to town and get a Raise Dead cast on them, would they still spawn when Sanctify Corpse expires?
If so, what CR is a shadow, again?
Oh yeah, I would also argue that being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening. That happens regardless of anything else. In fact multiple deaths should cause multiple shadows.Wait...are you saying that if someone cast a Raise Dead or used Ultimate Mercy during those 4 rounds, the character would still become a shadow? Or a shadow would spawn, just not necessarily the character becoming a shadow?Huh. I wouldn't go with that interpretation at all.
BUT: If a person is killed by their own shadow right after a battle res, do we declare that the GM has won?
I was asking based on the comment "being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening".
So if I drop Sanctify Corpse on someone killed by a shadow, drag their body back to town and get a Raise Dead cast on them, would they still spawn when Sanctify Corpse expires?
If so, what CR is a shadow, again?
This thread suddenly got interesting ...
|
|
Yes, because Raise Dead can not raise someone killed by a death effect. Which being slain by a shadow IS.
Citation? SKR says otherwise.
...a death effect is defined as anything that's identified as a death effect.
Raise Dead can not raise someone killed by a death effect. Which being slain by a shadow IS.
Citation needed
Edit: Ninja'd!
Oh yeah, I would also argue that being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening. That happens regardless of anything else. In fact multiple deaths should cause multiple shadows.Wait...are you saying that if someone cast a Raise Dead or used Ultimate Mercy during those 4 rounds, the character would still become a shadow? Or a shadow would spawn, just not necessarily the character becoming a shadow?Huh. I wouldn't go with that interpretation at all.
BUT: If a person is killed by their own shadow right after a battle res, do we declare that the GM has won?
I was asking based on the comment "being returned to life doesn't stop the spawn from happening".
So if I drop Sanctify Corpse on someone killed by a shadow, drag their body back to town and get a Raise Dead cast on them, would they still spawn when Sanctify Corpse expires?
If so, what CR is a shadow, again?
Sanctify Corpse specifically delays the spawn from coming out. It doesn't stop them.
I would suggest it would be better to take care of the coming shadow rather than ignore it's coming.
Of course I could be wrong. It's happened before.
|
|
Really? 3 pages of this. Really?
Breath of Life will bring back a dead character IF the HP healed is above the negative HP equal to CON.
That means that any STR damage doesn't matter, the character will be revived, though immediately be unconscious if any stat other than CON is at 0.
That the character was hit by a shadow is only the cause of the death. The character does not die again by the shadow until he is hit by the shadow again.
A character that is revived in this way most likely will shake off the effects that would have turned his corpse into a shadow.
The Shadow killing by STR damage is not a death effect, it is a kill by damage other than HP.
The reason a corpse can not be Breath of Life'd when suffered from CON damage is that there is no HP available to Heal back. CON 0 means you have 0 HPs.
The rules can only do so much, there is some common sense to put in place here. To try and spell out every little circumstance such as this little corner piece would mean books the size of ancient tomes that would need to be carried by huge dump trucks and use a contraption to enable the reader to turn the page.
Above negative con. That means it could bring you back to life because a positive number is above -0 or as we know it as 0.
My buddy gets killed by a shadow. I cast Sanctify Corpse* that same round. He can't rise as undead for 24 hours.
We take him back to the temple and pay for a Raise Dead. He is alive, and his ability damage heals so that he is carrying (Strength score-1) damage (e.g., on a 15 strength, he has 14 strength damage still). That means that the damage done by the shadow no longer "equals or exceeds" his strength score. We don't have enough money left over for a Restoration, so he has to settle for a Lesser Restoration (say he heals 4 more strength damage, so he currently has 10 damage left) and several days rest.
The next day, my Sanctify Corpse expires.
You're saying my buddy still turns into a shadow?
If a shadow's ability damage persists past a Raise Dead and a Lesser Restoration, is there anything that can stop it at all? If lesser restoration doesn't help in this case, why would it help if you're still alive?
I mean, if a shadow does a total of 15 points of strength damage over 5 rounds, does anything else that happens during those 5 rounds change that? Wouldn't you still be dead no matter how many lesser restorations your cleric managed to cast?
*My cleric is gonna carry several scrolls of this from now on. Never thought about this spell much before this discussion.
You're saying my buddy still turns into a shadow?
I really, really, really doubt that is the intent of how undead making abilities that trigger when something dies should work.
I know that it is a valid interpretation by strict RAW, but by RAW a greater shadow cannot kill someone with 9 or more strength ever, because a shadow never reduces a character's strength score (barring starvation from a week of strength damage induced coma). The rules text for shadows is borked. If you are already running part of how they work by RAI, you might as well run all of their rules by RAI.