| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So what about prismatic spray and green ray #4?
Poison (Frequency 1/rd. for 6 rd.; Init. effect death; Sec. effect 1 Con/rd.; Cure 2 consecutive Fort saves)*
How can anybody suffer from a secondary effect when he is dead?
This makes me think about a scenario where poisons with secondary effect cannot actually be avoided. If a character makes his first save when he contracts the affliction (initial effect avoided) he must keep making the following saves to avoid the secondary effects on his turns. Is it possible?
Breath of life.
Other forms of ressurection.
The poison will still be in their system if they were revived quickly enough.
So what about prismatic spray and green ray #4?
Poison (Frequency 1/rd. for 6 rd.; Init. effect death; Sec. effect 1 Con/rd.; Cure 2 consecutive Fort saves)*How can anybody suffer from a secondary effect when he is dead?
This makes me think about a scenario where poisons with secondary effect cannot actually be avoided. If a character makes his first save when he contracts the affliction (initial effect avoided) he must keep making the following saves to avoid the secondary effects on his turns. Is it possible?
Could be copy paste from 3.5.
In 3.5, succeeding on first save didn't stop needing to roll second.
So they pass the death effect, but get the Con if fail second.
The poison blog clarified stuff a few years ago. The first save is to determine exposure, if I recall. This case seems like an error, given the 3.5 version above.
I don't think this poison is a death effect. The closest definition of death effect I found in the PRD is "death attack".
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.
This definition may be a little vague, but from many posts in this forum (here) and considering that Death Ward should protect against these attacks we should consider death effects only spells with the [death] descriptor and effects specifically stated as such. So, I wouldn't say that a Scarab of Protection would protect you from a failed save, in this case.
I'm sure Starbuck_II is right, it's some unfortunate copy and paste from 3.5, but shouldn't it be addressed properly on FAQs? The poison blog Paulicus is referring to states that failing the first save makes you suffer from the poison effect immediately, killing you in this case. No Death Ward can save you. If you make the save, then you get no poison at all, making those Con damages impossible to get.
Pretty sure a death effect is anything that is explicitly a death effect. Killing instantly doesn't make something a death effect.
edit:
The poison isn't a death effect so being immune to death effects would not protect you from it.
Death effect has always been a vague term.
|
Make a better FAQ post and we will click it.
"There are ways to avoid death if you fail the first save" can be the reply, but it is a bit vague.
An example of a creature that can survive the first save is a troll. With regeneration he will not die as the effect of dying is to go at -con hp and a regenerating creature will recover from that (it will drop to -con hp and then regenerate back to conscious), but the con damage will still affect it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Make a better FAQ post and we will click it.
If I should FAQ it i would consider something like this:
Should the poison of Prismatic Spray need a rewrite according to Pathfinder poison rules? The text states there is a secondary effect with Con damages, but there is no way (neither failing nor succeeding the initial saving throw) to suffer from this condition.
Regeneration and some kinds of resurrection are the only possible ways to suffer the secondary effect, but they look like a corner case which would hardly be what the developers had in mind when they wrote the spell.
Death effect has always been a vague term.
Anything with the [Death] descriptor or that explicitly states "this is a Death Effect" is that vague?
Death effect has always been a vague term.Anything with the [Death] descriptor or that explicitly states "this is a Death Effect" is that vague?
Nope, those cases are pretty explicit.
But there are many other cases.
Death effect has always been a vague term.Anything with the [Death] descriptor or that explicitly states "this is a Death Effect" is that vague?Nope, those cases are pretty explicit.
But there are many other cases.
The 'many other cases' are not death effects. If it isn't explicitly a death effect, it isn't one.
It's not so much vague, really, just odd because there are effects that really should be one, but aren't. So, I do understand where you are coming from.
Immunity to death effects, such as death ward.
Death Ward doesn't give immunity to death effects in Pathfinder, just a +4 against them.
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there is (trolls for example), and you know that.
You are right, it's better if I merge my previous posts:
Prismatic Spray Poison: The text states there is a secondary effect with Con damages, but there is no way (neither failing nor succeeding the initial saving throw) to suffer from this condition. The only exceptions are some corner cases (eg. trolls with regeneration) which may suffer from the secondary effect after failing the first save. This looks far away from what the developers had in mind when they wrote the spell for 3.5 rules. Should the poison of Prismatic Spray need a rewrite according to Pathfinder poison rules, or should we consider this phenomenon as intended?