Welp. Personally, if I were on the GM side, I'd just rule that the corpse feather falls, because that makes sense. That being said, I know there will be people appearing who say otherwise, and I look forward to what they have to say about that when the time comes.
Targets one Medium or smaller free-falling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart
The whole "corpse is an object" argument is irrelevant, because there are two other things to consider. The first is that feather fall does not work on creatures who are above medium size, which in this case is your roc. You do mention something about a "level 7 upgrade" which may address this issue, but I'm not aware of what exactly that is. If it's relevant, I would appreciate some more details about it.
The second thing to consider is that feather fall does indeed work on objects. So feather fall does not stop working if something dies. Period.
I just posted this post yesterday, but it's very relevant here too.
Your dead roc will still be a roc. It's also an object, but it's still a roc, too. It won't have actions, but FeatherFall doesn't require an action. As a roc, it is a wearer of the ring and the ring activates when the roc falls. As a dead roc, it is still a roc and still a wearer of the ring which still activates when the (dead) roc falls. Feather Fall can target objects so that isn't even a concern.
The only concern is whether "wearer" includes "dead wearer" or not. I see no RAW to say it does not, so by default, it does (because the living roc is a wearer and becoming a dead roc doesn't have any RAW to say it stops being a wearer).
So:
1) Yes.
2) Yes. Yes.
3) Yes.
Edit: Oooh, I overlooked the fact that your ROC is large (don't they start as medium?). Given that, what CampinCarl said is true, your roc is never a valid target of Feather Fall because it is too big.
Level 7, so you can affect 7 Medium creatures....or 3.5 Large creatures.
So the Roc FFs, but you don't. As a DM, I'd rule that you would make a ride check to stay on. Based on http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/ride I'd say a DC5 with a saddle (note the -5 to the check if you don't have a saddle)
Interestingly enough...
CL 1st
First, forge ring is a level 7 feat. This means the minimum level of the caster infusing said ring is actually 7 - and such a ring should have a reflective price (as I often enforce in my campaigns).
That's not the rule. It doesn't work like that.
A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
So the Feather Fall ring in the book is CL 1 and priced accordingly.
Second, feather fall reads the following:
The spell affects one or more Medium or smaller creatures (including gear and carried objects up to each creature's maximum load) or objects, or the equivalent in larger creatures: a Large creature or object counts as two Medium creatures or objects, a Huge creature or object counts as four Medium creatures or objects, and so forth.So let's assume for this sake (or a custom item sake, since item creation is valid in this campaign) that it is a level 7 ring.
Also, I would be riding said roc at the time, so please take that into consideration for your answer.
Good catch. I should have read the whole spell instead of just the quoted part in this thread. My bad.
A CL 1 Ring of Feather Falling is not powerful enough to "catch" a falling creature that is larger than Medium, but a CL 2 Ring (4,400gp) could catch a Large falling creature like the OP's roc, but would not include the OP's character. A CL 3 ring (6,600gp) would catch the roc and the rider. Those two "custom" rings probably cannot exist in PFS and, as with all things, are subject to GM approval at any table.
I'd agree with DM Blake's reasoning.
Taking it further, a standard Ring of Feather Falling has a caster level of 1st - so it only covers a medium creature. If you create an upgraded version, by using item creation feats and using a higher caster level, you'd need to craft it with a caster level of at least 3. Crafting it at CL7 would be overkill - but also remember it's 1 round/level, so if you want to be able to fall safely from 600', you'd need a CL10 ring. CL3 gets you 180' - so you probably do want something with a higher CL.
Let's not forget that the spell on the ring is a continuous effect. The caster level of the spell won't matter for the duration of the effect since the ring 'activates' if the wearer falls more than 5ft. You are continuously falling until you hit the ground, therefor it is always active.
Am I really stupid to ask »why don't you where a Feather Fall ring yourself and watch your already dead roc plummet to the earth beneath you?«?
Feather Fall only affects medium or smaller so that won't work.
This is not true. Someone quoted only part of the spell and I unthinkingly went with it, but the spell DOES work on larger creatures, even colossal creatures if the caster is high enough level.
So to get what the OP wants, all he needs is caster level 3 which will cover a large roc and a medium rider. At this point it's technically a custom item since it's a higher CL than the official item, but it's easy enough to do (except maybe in PFS).
but also remember it's 1 round/level, so if you want to be able to fall safely from 600', you'd need a CL10 ring. CL3 gets you 180' - so you probably do want something with a higher CL.
Not really necessary.
The ring doesn't have limited use (it's continuous, as DeathlessOne said, so even if it only gets you 180' and you're still high in the air when the effect ends, you simply fall 5 more feet and it re-activates for the next 180', then reactivates for the next 180', until you reach the ground.
Am I really stupid to ask »why don't you where a Feather Fall ring yourself and watch your already dead roc plummet to the earth beneath you?«?
I wondered too, but then I thought that he might not want to lose the roc's corpse in case it had valuable gear. Who knows, that might be deep ocean or lava or something equally nasty down there. It might be nice to have those saddlebags feather-falling along side you when you decide you need to grab that gear on the way down.
Or maybe he wants two good rings on his own fingers and doesn't want to use up a slot, or pay x1.5 price to put Feather Fall on an existing ring.
I also thought that maybe having the ring on the mount would help if the roc were just stunned, paralyzed, unconscious, etc., rather than dead (although that would't raise the question of corpse vs. object).
A strict reading of the rules says it won't activate for your non-creature. The ring needs to be worn to activate - you can drop it off a roof and it will fall normally unless it has a wearer. A sword would fall normally with the ring, too, for example.
A more generous reading would say that you activate it when you don the ring and it would take some time for it to become inactive. I don't think that's formally supported by the rules, but it's the way I would adjudicate it.
A strict reading of the rules says it won't activate for your non-creature.
The ring is on the roc; that's never a "non-creature".
A strict reading of the rules says it won't activate for your non-creature.The ring is on the roc; that's never a "non-creature".
A dead roc is not a creature from the perspective of magic items. It can't activate the ring. If the roc is just unconscious I agree.
A dead roc is a creature. The ring requires no activation; it's automatic. See my first post in this thread (4th from the top).
Also, the conversation here between Fred and Bob puts it into a clearer perspective.
I will be more precise. I don't believe a dead creature has magic item slots. The ring will not operate unless it has a wearer, which I believe is tied to using a magic item slot. A strict reading of this wouldn't allow it to work for the same reason putting the ring on as your third ring wouldn't work.
Feather Fall works on objects, not just creatures. So I don't know why it would matter that the Roc died. Magic items don't necessarily stop working or applying their effects just because the owner and wearer of the items died. That's likely the reason the Ring of Regeneration specifically calls out that it works only for living wearers. If you die from HP damage, even your Ring of Regeneration can't save you.
Can you back that up by citing a rule for it?
The closest I can get to anything remotely like what you're saying is the rule that says dead creatures are objects, but that rule doesn't say they're not still creatures. If it did, then Fred and Bob would be discussing what really happens in game, which is preposterous.
Furthermore, the target of Raise Dead (etc.) is "dead creature touched". It's not "object that is a dead version of something that was once a creature but became an object when it died, touched". More proof that a dead creature is still a creature.
As far as I can tell, that makes dead stuff both a creatures and an object, and all the rules for creatures still apply, like wearing magic items. And if that magic item automatically activates itself, like a Ring of Feather Falling, then it will still do that.
Can you back that up by citing a rule for it?
The closest I can get to anything remotely like what you're saying is the rule that says dead creatures are objects, but that rule doesn't say they're not still creatures. If it did, then Fred and Bob would be discussing what really happens in game, which is preposterous.
Furthermore, the target of Raise Dead (etc.) is "dead creature touched". It's not "object that is a dead version of something that was once a creature but became an object when it died, touched". More proof that a dead creature is still a creature.
As far as I can tell, that makes dead stuff both a creatures and an object, and all the rules for creatures still apply, like wearing magic items. And if that magic item automatically activates itself, like a Ring of Feather Falling, then it will still do that.
Let me turn that around. Can you find any rule support either that a corpse remains a creature, or that a thing can be both a creature and an object at the same time?
I do not believe support exists for either proposition.
A more interesting question is, would a Ring of Featherfalling on a deceased mount activate for the mount AND the rider?
The mount, yes, for the reasons I've stated.
But including a second creature when Feather Fall is cast (as a spell) is a conscious decision by the caster.
A Ring of Feather Falling has no caster to make this decision. Are we to assume the wearer is the caster? Maybe. Perhaps when the ring activates (automatically) it asks the wearer to select additional targets?
Well, a CL 1 ring can't add additional targets anyway, so it's a moot point for the standard Ring of Feather Falling. But for higher CL rings, does the wearer get to include other creatures?
I'm inclined to assume he does, though I can't cite a rule for this. I could argue, strictly by RAW, that the wearer cannot make such a decision and therefore the ring ONLY applies to the wearer regardless of the CL of a custom Ring of Feather Falling. But I can also argue that the crafter could design the ring to actually allow the wearer to make this kind of decision since the spell makes this kind of decision, and furthermore, I believe that the caster would pretty much ALWAYS do it this way for a custom ring.
All of that said, no matter how I argue that, I don't think I can justify having a dead wearer make this decision, so I've argued myself back to a point where I think that even custom Ring of Feather Falling on a dead mount would only activate for that dead mount and not for his falling rider.
So, as the rider, I suggest you hang onto your saddle for dear life and hope the Feather Fall magic applies to you as "including gear and carried objects up to each creature's maximum load" since the mount was carrying you. Technically, it shouldn't, since it specifies objects and you're still alive so you're not an object, but since I never see GMs say "Well, wizard, your Feather Fall saved you but your familiar died since it's not a carried object", I think an argument can be made for a rider clinging to a carried saddle - but that's purely into GM adjudication now.
Welp. Personally, if I were on the GM side, I'd just rule that the corpse feather falls, because that makes sense. That being said, I know there will be people appearing who say otherwise, and I look forward to what they have to say about that when the time comes.
A part of me wished that this thread had disappointed me in what was coming up. Oh well. Blake at least helped cement my personal decision, because the whole Horse/Object talk is... Yeah.
Let me turn that around. Can you find any rule support either that a corpse remains a creature, or that a thing can be both a creature and an object at the same time?
I do not believe support exists for either proposition.
I did, in two earlier posts.
I think we can all agree that a living creature is a creature (if it's an object when it's "alive" then it wasn't a creature to begin with, right?). So if it begins as a creature, it's a creature at least until it dies.
When it dies, it becomes an object but the raw doesn't state that it stops being a creature. Some people assume that, like Bob in this preposterous conversation I've linked before. But the RAW doesn't say "When a creature dies, it stops being a creature and becomes an object".
Furthermore, as I pointed out, Raise Dead (etc.) targets "Dead Creatures", not "object that is a dead version of something that was once a creature but became an object when it died".
Clearly the rules support the idea of "dead creature" and don't specify that living creatures stop being creatures when they die.
To assume they cannot still be creatures is exactly that, an unsupported assumption that contradicts RAW.
But the RAW doesn't say "When a creature dies, it stops being a creature and becomes an object".
...
Clearly the rules support the idea of "dead creature" and don't specify that living creatures stop being creatures when they die.
To assume they cannot still be creatures is exactly that, an unsupported assumption that contradicts RAW.
The rules on what differentiates a dead creature's capabilities from a living creature are silent on many things. For example, assuming that a dead creature cannot take actions is an unsupported assumption.
As to raise dead, your alternative wording is considerably longer than what's there. I believe they use that for simplicity. That isn't proof that you're incorrect, but when simplicity is as reasonable an argument, it's not foolproof precedent-setting.
Edit: I think you realize that the Bob conversation is straw-manning. I don't believe a dead body generally qualifies as "using" an object, even if it's wearing it. I realize that I'm changing the details of my argument, but that's because I'm attempting to formalize something that I have taken as a given for a while. I don't think it's clear that an object (even one that is a dead creature) has slots in the same sense as a living/mobile creature. But I think this is a different approach that's less reliant on a "common sense" argument that means we can't dig in further.
Welp. Personally, if I were on the GM side, I'd just rule that the corpse feather falls, because that makes sense. That being said, I know there will be people appearing who say otherwise, and I look forward to what they have to say about that when the time comes.A part of me wished that this thread had disappointed me in what was coming up. Oh well. Blake at least helped cement my personal decision, because the whole Horse/Object talk is... Yeah.
I don't want to give you the wrong impression. I agree with that personal decision. I think a GM who said no would be supported by RAW, but making magic too legalistic rather than a natural system.
The rules on what differentiates a dead creature's capabilities from a living creature are silent on many things. For example, assuming that a dead creature cannot take actions is an unsupported assumption.But the RAW doesn't say "When a creature dies, it stops being a creature and becomes an object".
...
Clearly the rules support the idea of "dead creature" and don't specify that living creatures stop being creatures when they die.
To assume they cannot still be creatures is exactly that, an unsupported assumption that contradicts RAW.
Completely irrelevant.
You cannot assume an added rule that is not stated anywhere. Was it a living horse? Yes. At that time, was it a creature? Yes. Did it die? Yes. Is it still a creature? Yes - unless there is a rule saying it is NOT. There is no such rule, so it it is what it always has been: a creature. It has had some new definitions added, like "dead" and "object" but it has had no definitions removed.
Assuming the removal is actually adding a rule.
So while we're both assuming, I'm making the assumption that equates to "no rule means no change" and you're making the assumption that equates to "no rule means I must make up a rule to support an assumed change".
I think the assumption that doesn't require making up additional rules is compatible with RAW; the other is merely a house rule.
As to raise dead, your alternative wording is considerably longer than what's there. I believe they use that for simplicity. That isn't proof that you're incorrect, but when simplicity is as reasonable an argument, it's not foolproof precedent-setting.
They could have said "Dead object touched" which would have been the same word count but saved them two letters. They could have said "Object touched that is former creature" which is only 3 more words, hardly a hardship. Or "object touched that is dead former creature". Four more words but very accurate - if that's the rule.
I said it a much longer way to clearly illustrate the point.
Sure, it's possible to assume that professional game developers chose to minimize word count, even o the point of being flat wrong - but that assumes the developers chose being wrong over being wordy - even to the extreme that being wrong is better than adding a few short words.
Or it's possible to assume they chose to minimize word count AND they're also right.
I'd like to think that all of the professionals who created this game and who have chosen not to errata or even FAQ the subject for nearly two decades were probably right in the first place. The alternative, that they cherish word count to the extreme that they print incorrect rules and leave them that way over multiple printings, multiple revisions, and even a complete rewrite, without even a FAQ seems fairly improbable for so many professional game developers.
I could be wrong on that, but given the two choices, I'll assume professionalism trumps a tiny reduction in word count.
Wait, does this mean that you believe dead creatures are entitled to the same actions as their living brethren? Because that is the result of an absolute adherence to "no explicit rule means no change".
My stance here is simply that dead creatures cannot "use" an object, even if that use is a non-action. In this case I would grant the dead roc residual use, but digging up a corpse and putting the ring on it would not fly. Or float in this case.
The question of whether they are still formally creatures is irrelevant to this discussion, so I'll leave it alone.
Wait, does this mean that you believe dead creatures are entitled to the same actions as their living brethren?
Don't be silly.
We don't need a rule for that because this game is not played in a vacuum. It's played in the English language using words that are found in any dictionary. We all know what "dead" means and for those who don't, there is a dictionary. It's not even necessary for it to be a game term (but it is one anyway).
So start with English and then add game terms as applicable. It's a really simple concept.
The lack of a game rule that says dead creatures don't get actions is not permission to ignore everything the dictionary and/or our own life experience teaches us about what it means to be "dead".
In the case of the living horse (or roc, etc.) becoming a dead horse (etc.), we're adding everything we know about "dead" including a couple of game rules, too. None of which says it's not still a horse (etc.).
The lack of a game rule that says a dead horse stops being a horse is not permission to ignore everything the dictionary and/or our own life experience teaches us about what it means to be a "horse".
*Note for non-English gamers: The above still applies, using whatever language you prefer as the base language on top of which the rules are layered.
You cannot assume an added rule that is not stated anywhere.
The lack of a game rule that says dead creatures don't get actions is not permission to ignore everything the dictionary and/or our own life experience teaches us about what it means to be "dead".
In the case of the living horse (or roc, etc.) becoming a dead horse (etc.), we're adding everything we know about "dead" including a couple of game rules, too. None of which says it's not still a horse (etc.).
I don't understand how you're so confident about these lines of what's assumed about being dead. You call it irrelevant to this discussion that the rules don't say that dead creatures get no actions, but the fact that they don't say dead creatures can't activate magic items is proof positive that they're allowed to.
We both agree that there are consequences of being dead that the rules don't state. We agree it should follow from the real life aspects of being dead should guide us to those consequences. We disagree on where the line falls for consequences that don't have real-world analogues.
If you have reasons my line is wrong, I'd love to hear it. I have nothing to say your line is wrong, although mine feels closer to what I think dead means in the real world to me. But it's possible RAW doesn't make a distinction as to which of our views is correct. That's where I think this lands.
A dead creature is still a creature. It is supported in the rules quite clearly and already cited by DM_Blake. The alternative is quite absurd and a number of spells and abilities simply don't work. A creature that is dead doesn't get to act or activate magic items or be treated as a live creature - it is still dead, and an object, and a creature.
Ring of Featherfall is effectively a continuous effect, it does not need activating. (technically it activates itself automatically without conscious input from it's wearer, but the rules have no classification for that - continuous is close enough). Either way the condition of the wearer is largely irrelevant.
It only affects it's wearer, because it is never actually "cast" or consciously activated so you can't choose additional targets.
|
Can you back that up by citing a rule for it?
The closest I can get to anything remotely like what you're saying is the rule that says dead creatures are objects, but that rule doesn't say they're not still creatures. If it did, then Fred and Bob would be discussing what really happens in game, which is preposterous.
Furthermore, the target of Raise Dead (etc.) is "dead creature touched". It's not "object that is a dead version of something that was once a creature but became an object when it died, touched". More proof that a dead creature is still a creature.
As far as I can tell, that makes dead stuff both a creatures and an object, and all the rules for creatures still apply, like wearing magic items. And if that magic item automatically activates itself, like a Ring of Feather Falling, then it will still do that.
Let me turn that around. Can you find any rule support either that a corpse remains a creature, or that a thing can be both a creature and an object at the same time?
I do not believe support exists for either proposition.
Animated Object. A creature that is an object.
|
|
It only affects it's wearer, because it is never actually "cast" or consciously activated so you can't choose additional targets.
I would say it affect what the dead creature is carrying as long as it is in contact with the corpse and within the dead creature carrying capacity when it was alive.
To put it another way, the rider body is trying to fall faster than the dead roc body but the rider is strapped to the saddle. When the rider body try to accelerate he meet the resistance of the roc body. As long as the strength generated by the falling rider isn't so high that it overcome the feather falling effect he will be supported by the roc body.
If the strength generated by the falling rider is higher than the limit of the feather fall effect both creatures will plummet to the ground with the normal acceleration.
If while falling they get separated the roc body will benefit from the feather falling effect, while the rider body will accelerate normally.
A dead creature is still a creature. It is supported in the rules quite clearly and already cited by DM_Blake. The alternative is quite absurd and a number of spells and abilities simply don't work. A creature that is dead doesn't get to act or activate magic items or be treated as a live creature - it is still dead, and an object, and a creature.
Ring of Featherfall is effectively a continuous effect, it does not need activating. (technically it activates itself automatically without conscious input from it's wearer, but the rules have no classification for that - continuous is close enough). Either way the condition of the wearer is largely irrelevant.
It only affects it's wearer, because it is never actually "cast" or consciously activated so you can't choose additional targets.
It's a use-activated item, activated by wearing it and falling. "Wearing" a magic item isn't quite the same as having it on. For example, I don't think a mannequin could "use" the ring sufficiently to activate it. So the question is whether a dead creature should be treated like a mannequin in this sense or like a living creature. My interpretation says the former. In most cases this means dead creatures effectively don't have magic item slots.
I think that's a logical result of the inertness of dead bodies. I accept it's not an inevitable result, but as I said, I believe it's reasonable for the RAW to be silent on something like this, requiring the GM (with advice and consent of the players) to make a determination on how it plays out in a particular game.
Plus, this is the Rules Forum. When the answer is clear, we should be helpful that way. When it's not (or if it's indeterminate) we should also call that out.
Feather Fall works on objects, not just creatures. So I don't know why it would matter that the Roc died. Magic items don't necessarily stop working or applying their effects just because the owner and wearer of the items died. That's likely the reason the Ring of Regeneration specifically calls out that it works only for living wearers. If you die from HP damage, even your Ring of Regeneration can't save you.
Read farther. "If the wearer loses a limb, an organ, or any other body part while wearing this ring, the ring regenerates it as the spell." So if the wearer's head is cut off, the head regenerates. You can throw your now dead spare head at your foe.
Now consider blue giants that sell exotic magic items. Any automatically resizing rings they sell will be third level. They might sell the ring of feather falling you want.
The fault is in the magic item charts.
That pretty much sums it up.
But you may have missed the idea that a Ring of Feather Falling, even a custom one created at higher Casting Level, would still only apply to the wearer. When it activates, it doesn't get the one creature/level benefit because the ring cannot make that decision on its own.
In my opinion, this is the one problem with your idea.
Me, as a GM, I'd say that as long as you remain mounted in the saddle, you count as "carried gear" even though you're not technically "gear". But if you are falling in the air next to your roc when its ring activates, it won't do you a bit of good; you'll still plummet to your death.
A bonded mount is one with their rider. I'm not sure they can be knocked out of the saddle.
Add that different tables have opinions on if instant death exists.
Is a Roc at negative 10 hit points dead or dying? Is a creature an object before or after rigor mortis?
This is how I look at it. Much like the Monk's capstone, the Roc's dead body is treated as an object as far as spells or effects effect objects. The Roc is still a creature, living or dead.
That's a great way to look at it.
Once a creature, always a creature, but if that creatures dies, it ADDS the ability that it can be targeted by anything that normally only targets objects (which could not target the living creature but now can target the dead creature/object) - but adding this ability does not remove any previous abilities (such as being a creature or being affected by things that affect creatures).
Note, I'm not saying that being dead ONLY adds this one thing. It adds other things too, like the DEAD condition for example.