|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?
Enlarge person: yes. It is the same body.
Dominate person: yes, but you are dominating the original person, not the undead you just created. They are different creatures.
For what's worth I run the same, permanency ends on death.
There's plenty of wonky decisions that need to be made, magic jar is a good example -- does permanency reside in the body or with the soul? So permanent arcane sight, you move to a jar then to some hapless body, does arcane sight move with you?
I recommend you accept yoir GM ruling and move on.
I have read the entire topic, and I have decided that if someone had enlarge placed permanently on them, and they die in a dungeon, there's an enlarged corpse that can be animated by the first necromancer who comes along. An enlarged, bloody, skeleton would be a great battle buddy for your PC necromancer.
If a cleric joins the party and their channel energy accidentally vaporizes your skelly, the enlarge either ends, or it becomes a living spell that can only land on a valid target. Likewise if the body rots to dust. There is room for GM interpretation. If the dust is kept pure and contained, true res. can be cast on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what's worth I run the same, permanency ends on death.
I see literally no rules to support this decision.
There's plenty of wonky decisions that need to be made, magic jar is a good example -- does permanency reside in the body or with the soul? So permanent arcane sight, you move to a jar then to some hapless body, does arcane sight move with you?
It's a personal spell so it "affects only you." "You" is not defined in the rules.
I recommend you accept yoir GM ruling and move on.
I do believe that is perfectly appropriate between sessions to discuss rules with your GM and try to work out reasonable accommodations that everyone can agree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?Enlarge person: yes. It is the same body.
Dominate person: yes, but you are dominating the original person, not the undead you just created. They are different creatures.
The difference between enlarge person and dominate person is an interesting one. I think that instinctively GMs would rule against dominate person continuing after death, without necessarily articulating why. So if you then say that enlarge person should work the same way you get a bit of traction.
But there are two things that make me think they would work differently.
1. Dominate person is a mind-affecting spell. Turning a dominated person into a mindless creature would presumably render the spell useless. If the spell allows you to control the target's mind, and target no longer has a mind, then the spell should not do anything any more. The spell may still be active, but I can't see it doing anything.
i.e.: If you chop the legs off of someone, their expeditious retreat spell no longer has any effect. But if you then cast regenerate and restore their legs, and the expeditious retreat spell's duration is still ticking, then expeditious retreat still works.
2. Dominate person cannot be made permanent. Really the issue is the permanency spell, not the enlarge person spell.
* * *
As a GM, in my games I would probably allow Permanency to continue working, on the grounds that you spent gold on a permanent effect.
Permanency is not as good as a magic item, since it is vulnerable to dispel magic. But nevertheless, if I was going to impose a "permanency expires upon death" rule, I would feel obligated to warn players about that before they cast permanent spells on themselves. If I didn't explain this and then dropped it on my players when their characters died, they would have cause to be pissed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's again use magic jar to figure out how things should work.
A barbarian is subject to dominate monster by a vampire. They will do its bidding.
A wizard - unknowingly - uses magic jar to take over the body of the dominated barbarian. The soul of the barbarian is in a crystal, the soul of the wizard is in the body of the barbarian, and the body of the wizard is "dead".
The wizard starts walking around to do whatever he wants to do, and the vampire sees this, and gives the command, "stop walking."
What happens?
At my table, I'm sure I'd rule that the wizard flips the vampire the bird and casts something horribly destructive at it. Surprise!
Mind/soul and body are two different things. I'd probably rule that things that transform a body apply to a body, and things that alter a mind apply to a mind. If you've been subject to baleful polymorph and someone uses magic jar, they're going to inhabit a little bunny's body.
So the way I view it, a dead enlarged and dominated individual who is killed that is then raised as an undead, you've got an enlarged but not dominated creature, even if the spell used was dominate monster.
Given that model, the question of target-validity becomes a little clearer. The fly spell applies to the body, not the mind. So you'd get a flying undead.
But again, this is just being consistent, and using the precedent in magic jar to underline that there's no reason for spells to end when their target dies. They just may not be useful. You can absolutely have an invisible corpse, for instance, until it wears off.
What happens when you cast a helpful spell on a party member, where the target line reads "willing creature touched", then afterwards the party member changes their mind? Does the spell just suddenly go away? No. The target was valid when the spell was cast, and as long as the recipient could possibly still be the recipient, it remains in place. If you disintegrate a person who's got mage armor on them, yeah, I guess the spell is gone, because there's no target at all to have an armor bonus.
It's also MUCH simpler to retain spells after death. Otherwise all kinds of nasty book-keeping comes into play with breath of life. I imagine a joyous argument the day someone tries to use breath of life on a fallen party member who had bear's endurance on them, and the make/break as to if enough healing is dealt to wake them up is based on the bonus hit points and negative Con score.
As a house rule, I'd probably have the ongoing spells travel with the spirit/soul of the creature. But any ruling will have corner cases that don't make sense.
The current written rules favor the spells staying with the body, since you don't have line of sight to target anything else. Which has its own corner cases that don't make sense.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even your Corpse is a valid target for Enlarge Person, just because you died does not mean your body isn't a valid target and it stays enlarged.
Remember, Raise Dead says "Target: dead creature touched" your corpse doesn't stop being a creature just because you died.
Now, if you were Reincarnated, or received a True Resurrection because your body had been destroyed, then no, it's gone because it was associated with the old body.
your corpse may be a valid target for enlarge person but you it is not a valid target for telepathic bond. Permanant spells last until he effect ends - not for all time. The effect of telepathically linking with someone ends when their brain dies, therefore the spell ends...
... Apply the same to all other spells capable of being made permanent bar enlarge person and reduce person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
your corpse may be a valid target for enlarge person but you it is not a valid target for telepathic bond. Permanant spells last until he effect ends - not for all time. The effect of telepathically linking with someone ends when their brain dies, therefore the spell ends...
... Apply the same to all other spells capable of being made permanent bar enlarge person and reduce person.
No, you keep saying that but that is just your assertion. You have no evidence from the rules to prove that this assertion is true. You just keep saying it.
With respect to the telepathic bond it doesn't end just because the creature on the other end is currently unable to communicate via that bond because of their current condition. Conditions generally do not cause spells to end and Dead is just a condition.
|
(More context): i have enlarge person on me, i died, gm says falls off i say no it doesnt
Can we get even more context?
You are an Enlarged corpse or a Normal size corpse? Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.
I agree that there is a distinct grey area when dealing with permanent spells. In particular, when dealing with additional permanent changes in state. This is probably one of the reasons PFS bans the permanency spell.
For example, you are permanently enlarged, then die, and then a necromancer uses create animate dead on your corpse. Does the Undead Creature retain the Enlarged state?
Though regarding permanent spells which no longer have a legal target, I think the GM could reasonably suppress the spell effects while their target is no longer valid. I don't think it would dispel it, but I think the spell wouldn't affect targets that it can't affect.
As per the PRD "Enlarge Person" the spell targets "Humanoid Creatures" so the permanent version should remain in effect unless the PC ceases to be a humanoid creature. A humanoid corpse is a humanoid creature, in my book anyway. Humanoid undead should also qualify for this spell.
If you die in a manner where you are no longer humanoid, I would argue that the permanent Enlarge Person would be suppressed until you become humanoid again. The spell would remain, though it would be effectively gone.
Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.
In particular, it was a permanent spell, i.e. one he'd paid to acquire with permanency. If it "ends" (is effectively dispelled) by his death, than he's wasted a large amount of gold.
My go-to solution for such things is to get continuous magical items, but many GMs don't like those. My guess (though it's only a guess, as I really don't know the guy) is that this GM doesn't like the permanent magical access - something many GMs find frustrating for various reasons -, and so ruled against it persisting beyond death.
That said, it could also just be his genuine impression of how it's "supposed" to work - what makes sense to him.
Either way, there are other methods of getting stuff, and I recommend those, in general. :)
EDIT: To be clear, I recognize that you understood (and addressed) the issue of permanency, but that, I think, is the core of the reason the question mattered in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though regarding permanent spells which no longer have a legal target, I think the GM could reasonably suppress the spell effects while their target is no longer valid. I don't think it would dispel it, but I think the spell wouldn't affect targets that it can't affect.
Spells continue to affect "non-legal" targets all of the time. The Share Spells ability lets you cast Enlarge Person on a companion creature without ever actually changing the "Target" nature of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though regarding permanent spells which no longer have a legal target, I think the GM could reasonably suppress the spell effects while their target is no longer valid. I don't think it would dispel it, but I think the spell wouldn't affect targets that it can't affect.Spells continue to affect "non-legal" targets all of the time. The Share Spells ability lets you cast Enlarge Person on a companion creature without ever actually changing the "Target" nature of the spell.
That's not really a relevant comparison, since Share Spells has explicit language that allows it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not really a relevant comparison, since Share Spells has explicit language that allows it.Though regarding permanent spells which no longer have a legal target, I think the GM could reasonably suppress the spell effects while their target is no longer valid. I don't think it would dispel it, but I think the spell wouldn't affect targets that it can't affect.Spells continue to affect "non-legal" targets all of the time. The Share Spells ability lets you cast Enlarge Person on a companion creature without ever actually changing the "Target" nature of the spell.
"A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal)."
Note that Share Spells only changes what you can "cast" the spell on. It doesn't say the "target" of the spell changes, so the spell would still have a "target" of "one humanoid creature".
Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.In particular, it was a permanent spell, i.e. one he'd paid to acquire with permanency. If it "ends" (is effectively dispelled) by his death, than he's wasted a large amount of gold.
My go-to solution for such things is to get continuous magical items, but many GMs don't like those. My guess (though it's only a guess, as I really don't know the guy) is that this GM doesn't like the permanent magical access - something many GMs find frustrating for various reasons -, and so ruled against it persisting beyond death.
That said, it could also just be his genuine impression of how it's "supposed" to work - what makes sense to him.
Either way, there are other methods of getting stuff, and I recommend those, in general. :)
EDIT: To be clear, I recognize that you understood (and addressed) the issue of permanency, but that, I think, is the core of the reason the question mattered in the first place.
Permanency is significantly cheaper than a continuous magic item, and multiple permanency effects can be done a day as opposed to multiple days of crafting for one item (yes an item might be purchased, even a custom item if the a GM is generous, but sourcing these items is more difficult than expending spell slots and tossing diamond dust to the gods).
My guess is the player just wants a favorable ruling and doesn't care about rules, world building, balance, etc etc
That's actually not my guess, just an exercise in countering one silly argument with another silly one.
For everyone saying there are no rules for this or that, please look in the mirror and realize there are no rules for the opposite conclusion, certainly nothing explicit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.In particular, it was a permanent spell, i.e. one he'd paid to acquire with permanency. If it "ends" (is effectively dispelled) by his death, than he's wasted a large amount of gold.
My go-to solution for such things is to get continuous magical items, but many GMs don't like those. My guess (though it's only a guess, as I really don't know the guy) is that this GM doesn't like the permanent magical access - something many GMs find frustrating for various reasons -, and so ruled against it persisting beyond death.
That said, it could also just be his genuine impression of how it's "supposed" to work - what makes sense to him.
Either way, there are other methods of getting stuff, and I recommend those, in general. :)
EDIT: To be clear, I recognize that you understood (and addressed) the issue of permanency, but that, I think, is the core of the reason the question mattered in the first place.
Permanency is significantly cheaper than a continuous magic item, and multiple permanency effects can be done a day as opposed to multiple days of crafting for one item (yes an item might be purchased, even a custom item if the a GM is generous, but sourcing these items is more difficult than expending spell slots and tossing diamond dust to the gods).
My guess is the player just wants a favorable ruling and doesn't care about rules, world building, balance, etc etc
That's actually not my guess, just an exercise in countering one silly argument with another silly one.
For everyone saying there are no rules for this or that, please look in the mirror and realize there are no rules for the opposite conclusion, certainly nothing explicit.
Yes, whenever rules are unclear, it's always best to assume that anyone who dares to disagree with your position is only doing so because they are wantonly stupid and evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I'm perfectly happy beating this dead horse until the invisibility wears off so I can do a Heal check to confirm it's dead...
Spells last as long as their duration says, regardless of changes in the Target.
Witness temporary resurrection from Ultimate Magic.
Spoiler: you cast it on a dead creature, which immediately stops being dead, for 24 hours. So either I'm right, in which case this spells works, or I'm wrong, and the moment the target stops being dead, it ends, and it should have been called waste a standard action and a 7th-level spell slot.
Are we done? Or do I really need to find more examples? I'm pretty sure there's one that temporarily kills a living creature to avoid detection. That should put a nail in the coffin. Or, maybe you shouldn't, since the moment you die, you're alive again, so you'll want to get out of the coffin.
*Aside: I get it what's happening here. The GM has seen movies where - for instance - werewolves revert to their natural form on death. Stuff where illusions fail upon their creator's fall. It's a TV/movie trope. I understand that. But it's not how this game works.
I think it's probably mmo logic, where all your buffs fall off when you die.
It's actually more likely to be a hold over from 3.5, but whatever, people want to exchange one set of house rules for another set of house rules.
Again, there is no explicit RAW entry for what happens, this is exactly the area where GMs make decisions, but I suppose some people in this forum forget that GMs making decisions is also part of the game (and that part of that game even has explicit rules to reference! golly gee that).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 0 doesn't much matter to this discussion. Obviously, a DM can use whatever houserules he wants. This forum is more about deciding what the rules that are written suggest. And in this case it is fairly clear that spells don't end until dispelled, dismissed or expired. Any ruling otherwise is houserules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.In particular, it was a permanent spell, i.e. one he'd paid to acquire with permanency. If it "ends" (is effectively dispelled) by his death, than he's wasted a large amount of gold.
My go-to solution for such things is to get continuous magical items, but many GMs don't like those. My guess (though it's only a guess, as I really don't know the guy) is that this GM doesn't like the permanent magical access - something many GMs find frustrating for various reasons -, and so ruled against it persisting beyond death.
That said, it could also just be his genuine impression of how it's "supposed" to work - what makes sense to him.
Either way, there are other methods of getting stuff, and I recommend those, in general. :)
EDIT: To be clear, I recognize that you understood (and addressed) the issue of permanency, but that, I think, is the core of the reason the question mattered in the first place.
Permanency is significantly cheaper than a continuous magic item, and multiple permanency effects can be done a day as opposed to multiple days of crafting for one item (yes an item might be purchased, even a custom item if the a GM is generous, but sourcing these items is more difficult than expending spell slots and tossing diamond dust to the gods).
My guess is the player just wants a favorable ruling and doesn't care about rules, world building, balance, etc etc
That's actually not my guess, just an exercise in countering one silly argument with another silly one.
For everyone saying there are no rules for this or that, please look in the mirror and realize there are no rules for the opposite conclusion, certainly nothing explicit.
"Only" a whole paragraph that say when a spell end, with very clear conditions. None is "at the death of the target".
My guess is the player just wants a favorable ruling and doesn't care about rules, world building, balance, etc etc
That's actually not my guess, just an exercise in countering one silly argument with another silly one.
Look, I try not to engage with you, as I recognize that you generally take the things I say the wrong way (and possibly vice verse, too), but... you're (apparently) reading what I wrote with an attitude differently than I attempted to express.
I want to make sure you understand: I wasn't trying to impugn the GM.
I apologize if it came off as patronizing as your response reads as intended to be. If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize for that as well.
That said, one thing you mentioned was definitively incorrect:
Permanency is significantly cheaper than a continuous magic item,
No, no it's not; at least not for enlarge person, which was the specific thing we're discussing.
OP, just so you know what I was talking about:
Permanency costs 2,500 gold.
A continuous magic item costs 2,000 gold - 1,000 if you make it yourself (which takes 16 hours over two days or, if adventuring, takes the same amount of time over four days).
(Also, personally, I'd recommend making it a Command Word and getting a free 1 minute increase whenever you want instead of being forced to be larger at all times while saving 200 gold. But that's just me - some people just like to be BIGGER, which, you know, is up to them.)
Permanency is a great spell - I like it, and I use it, and I encourage it as a GM. It allows you to get permanent stuff outside of having a feat - that's great! But it has drawbacks and costs. One of those is that it's able to be dispelled. (Another is that, in certain specific instances, it's more expensive.)
Items also have drawbacks, but items, at least, are either fungible (except for tattoos) and/or have broader reach than the spell... which makes sense, as you're burning a feat.
Hence, the source of these as a recommendation.
"Only" a whole paragraph that say when a spell end, with very clear conditions. None is "at the death of the target".
Woof. When Diego and I agree on the intent and weight a ruling, watch out! Something weird might be about to happen!
I feel perfectly secure in saying your GM made a house rule and threw away a perfectly evil adventure carrot. (Yeah, that grave is larger than the others. So your necro priest is in?)
In the case of intelligent undead, I would rule that mental effects start up again. Thus your mindlink starts back up again but you get to hear a vampire obsess about being thirsty for blood. That's a real borderline case and you are welcome to rule differently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that this houserule is a double edged sword. Is your teammate under a bad spell effect that's normally hard to dispel? He's just a coup-de-grace and a breath of life away from being all better.
Can't really be a house rule sense there is no clear ruling regarding this, 3.5 was clearer of course.
For the record I have no personal objection to ruling the other direction, I personally find it less interesting mechanically and fluff-wise, but those are matters of taste, I can at least acknowledge the rules don't exist and there is no definitive answer, an objective view which is often lacking in what can become at times a less than civil discussion.
As for saying 2000 gp for continuous enlarge person, this is a tangent but the cost guidelines are considered a last resort, it is better to look for items which are similar and price accordingly, such a search strongly suggests enlarge person continuously is more expensive, closer to 4 or 6000 gp.
I can't imagine allowing a continuous enlarge person for that low a price, yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't really be a house rule sense there is no clear ruling regarding this, 3.5 was clearer of course.
For the record I have no personal objection to ruling the other direction, I personally find it less interesting mechanically and fluff-wise, but those are matters of taste, I can at least acknowledge the rules don't exist and there is no definitive answer, an objective view which is often lacking in what can become at times a less than civil discussion.
As for saying 2000 gp for continuous enlarge person, this is a tangent but the cost guidelines are considered a last resort, it is better to look for items which are similar and price accordingly, such a search strongly suggests enlarge person continuously is more expensive, closer to 4 or 6000 gp.
It is absolutely a house rule. The rules are quite clear and multiple examples have been given and arguments made. None of them have been answered. Instead certain folks keep coming back and simply repeating their incorrect understanding as if their saying it makes it true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enlarge person is an interesting example on permanent spells, since a simple reduce person from any level caster will get rid of it.
I consider the "spells with dead creature as a target prove that dead creatures are still creatures for spell targeting" to be an oversimplification. A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be. It's proof that magic can affect dead creatures, but not that they're affected the same way as creatures that are still living/undead/animated. We can get into an involved discussion on this, but I'd rather not.
As for Anguish's point about specific spells that don't work when adhering strongly to a claim that when the target no longer meets the target line's conditions, those are handled by assuming a condition applied by the spell doesn't invalidate the spell. I think that's still too broad and that such situations need to be adjudicated separately (creatures blinded after color spray are still zonked out because that's a delivery condition, for example).
I personally think the game left defining what happens with death vague because it's kind of on the outskirts of the game. Dead creatures usually don't remain relevant in the long term. I don't think it's deliberate, but it's not a central focus. And a full "dead" description is where I would expect something like this to live, not in the duration description. I also don't believe the "dead" condition comes close to
For my money, permanent spells on dead creatures should wear off eventually as the magic and body decay together. So breath of life would have no problem, raise dead would probably be fine, but sufficiently deconstructed bodies would maybe not keep the magic for resurrection and true resurrection. I'm comfortable with calling this a house rule, but not either the "it stays forever" or the "the magic leaves immediately with the soul" with a possible exception for breath of life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enlarge person is an interesting example on permanent spells, since a simple reduce person from any level caster will get rid of it.
I consider the "spells with dead creature as a target prove that dead creatures are still creatures for spell targeting" to be an oversimplification. A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be. It's proof that magic can affect dead creatures, but not that they're affected the same way as creatures that are still living/undead/animated. We can get into an involved discussion on this, but I'd rather not.
First, you just claimed that a dead creature is a type of object. Please provide a citation where a dead creature is referred to as an object. As you have noted there is explicit text calling it a dead creature and creature is a defined type in PF. So you must show where the rules state the creature changes to an object.
Second, the breath of life spell does not target a "dead creature" it just says it targets a "creature" period. So if as you claim "dead creature" is simply a type of object then there is never a valid target for the spell.
As for Anguish's point about specific spells that don't work when adhering strongly to a claim that when the target no longer meets the target line's conditions, those are handled by assuming a condition applied by the spell doesn't invalidate the spell. I think that's still too broad and that such situations need to be adjudicated separately (creatures blinded after color spray are still zonked out because that's a delivery condition, for example).
Just because you think that is too broad isn't worth the effort you took to type it. Your thoughts aren't rules. Examples, from the rules have been given. It has been repeatedly shown that spells do not end because of conditions unless the spell or condition specifically state it.
I personally think the game left defining what happens with death vague because it's kind of on the outskirts of the game. Dead creatures usually don't remain relevant in the long term. I don't think it's deliberate, but it's not a central focus. And a full "dead" description is where I would expect something like this to live, not in the duration description. I also don't believe the "dead" condition comes close to
The dead condition contains all of the information necessary to adjudicate the condition. it is not vague as is repeatedly claimed without proof.
For my money, permanent spells on dead creatures should wear off eventually as the magic and body decay together. So breath of life would have no problem, raise dead would probably be fine, but sufficiently deconstructed bodies would maybe not keep the magic for resurrection and true resurrection. I'm comfortable with calling this a house rule, but not either the "it stays forever" or the "the magic leaves immediately with the soul" with a possible exception for breath of life.
If you are saying that the "magic stays forever" position is a house rule then you are completely wrong. No other position has any rules text at all to support it and is completely based on suppositions. There is mounds of rules text for the "permanent magic is permanent" position.
A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be.
No - a dead creature is just a creature with the dead condition.
First, you just claimed that a dead creature is a type of object. Please provide a citation where a dead creature is referred to as an object. As you have noted there is explicit text calling it a dead creature and creature is a defined type in PF. So you must show where the rules state the creature changes to an object.
Second, the breath of life spell does not target a "dead creature" it just says it targets a "creature" period. So if as you claim "dead creature" is simply a type of object then there is never a valid target for the spell.
I don't think that saying a corpse (i.e. a dead creature) is an object is contentious. I believe this is an obvious result of the "dead" condition that is omitted (more on this later). Note that being an object and being a creature are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
As for breath of life, you're right. I think that's a mistake that should get errataed.
Just because you think that is too broad isn't worth the effort you took to type it. Your thoughts aren't rules. Examples, from the rules have been given. It has been repeatedly shown that spells do not end because of conditions unless the spell or condition specifically state it.
Anguish was taking someone else's interpretation and proving it wrong by pointing out spells it would break. I was saying that just because they didn't define that interpretation in exhausting detail, doesn't mean it can't be understood in a reasonable way that avoids those pitfalls. I believe it was a form of straw-manning without intent to do so and deserved pointing out.
For instance, if I said a speed of 30 ft means you can take a move action to move 30 ft along the ground, you wouldn't say I don't understand the rules because you might be prone and unable to do so. You would assume there are some exceptions that I either didn't realize (and helpfully point them out) or assume that I omitted it for brevity. This is a less obvious exception, so Anguish pointing it out to clarify the opposing viewpoint is helpful but not the death knell of the viewpoint.
The dead condition contains all of the information necessary to adjudicate the condition. it is not vague as is repeatedly claimed without proof.
Sorry. I spoke imprecisely. It's not vague - it's incomplete. There are obvious ramifications of being dead that are not implied by the condition (e.g. you don't get actions). Because we obviously need to extend the condition, the extent to which it "obviously" needs to be extended is up to interpretation.
If you are saying that the "magic stays forever" position is a house rule then you are completely wrong. No other position has any rules text at all to support it and is completely based on suppositions. There is mounds of rules text for the "permanent magic is permanent" position.
No. I'm saying that I think both the "magic stays forever" and "magic leaves with the soul" are consistent with the rules as written and reasonable assumptions on how to fill out the "dead" condition. My preferred version is a house rule. When I say the rules aren't clear, I tend to say which of the rules-consistent interpretations I prefer. In this case it's neither.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, there are absolutely zero rules suggesting that a spell ends when the target is no longer "valid". And in fact there are quite a few spells and abilities that would break if this were the case.
I don't think that saying a corpse (i.e. a dead creature) is an object is contentious. I believe this is an obvious result of the "dead" condition that is omitted (more on this later). Note that being an object and being a creature are not necessarily mutually exclusive.As for breath of life, you're right. I think that's a mistake that should get errataed.
Yes creatures and objects are mutually exclusive. They are separate defined terms in PF and one is never the other. If you have any evidence to the contrary then present it rather than just asserting it. Dead creatures are explicitly defined as creatures.
Anguish was taking someone else's interpretation and proving it wrong by pointing out spells it would break. I was saying that just because they didn't define that interpretation in exhausting detail, doesn't mean it can't be understood in a reasonable way that avoids those pitfalls. I believe it was a form of straw-manning without intent to do so and deserved pointing out.
If I misunderstood your argument then I apologize. I thought you were agreeing rather than disagreeing with Anguish. It looked to me that you were saying that conditions resulting in spells ending should be adjudicated individually. If that was not your argument I again apologize.
Sorry. I spoke imprecisely. It's not vague - it's incomplete. There are obvious ramifications of being dead that are not implied by the condition (e.g. you don't get actions). Because we obviously need to extend the condition, the extent to which it "obviously" needs to be extended is up to interpretation.
No, the condition is not incomplete. Not getting actions is directly implied by the condition. It explicitly says the soul leaves the body. In PF what happens when a soul leaves a body is well documented, including the inability to act.
No. I'm saying that I think both the "magic stays forever" and "magic leaves with the soul" are consistent with the rules as written and reasonable assumptions on how to fill out the "dead" condition. My preferred version is a house rule. When I say the rules aren't clear, I tend to say which of the rules-consistent interpretations I prefer. In this case it's neither.
The "magic leaves with the soul" is not supported by the rules at all. There has not been a single citation to support it so to say it is equally as valid as a position which has tremendous textual support is either dishonest or delusional.
A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be.No - a dead creature is just a creature with the dead condition.
If we accept your premise, is there ever a point when it becomes an object, then? For example, can a wizard bring a dozen chicken dinners along when casting teleport? What if they're not prepared in any way - just killed?
I realize the component for spider climb would be a problem regardless, which is why I ignored dead creatures in a component pouch in the question.
On another note, does the ancient morgue of a paladin order glow with overwhelming good under the effects of a detect good? I claim no, the creature only radiates good as long as it lives (or unlives or whatever) plus the lingering aura. But if the corpse continues to be the same creature, it will only become a lingering aura when the corpse is destroyed, not when the creature merely dies.
A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be.No - a dead creature is just a creature with the dead condition.If we accept your premise, is there ever a point when it becomes an object, then? For example, can a wizard bring a dozen chicken dinners along when casting teleport? What if they're not prepared in any way - just killed?
I realize the component for spider climb would be a problem regardless, which is why I ignored dead creatures in a component pouch in the question.
On another note, does the ancient morgue of a paladin order glow with overwhelming good under the effects of a detect good? I claim no, the creature only radiates good as long as it lives (or unlives or whatever) plus the lingering aura. But if the corpse continues to be the same creature, it will only become a lingering aura when the corpse is destroyed, not when the creature merely dies.
First there is no denying the premise. It is explicitly stated in the rules. Dead is listed under conditions just like blind, deaf, poisoned, paralyzed, etc... A blind creature is a creature with the blind condition. A paralyzed creature is just a creature with the paralyzed condition. To show Dead is any different you must show rules text indicating that to be the case which neither you nor anyone else has done.
Yes, wizards can bring dead chickens and yes paladins with the dead condition glow when detecting good.
If we accept your premise, is there ever a point when it becomes an object, then?
Look at it from the other way.
Once dead, do bodies take "half damage from ranged weapons" and "Energy attacks deal half damage"? Do bodies get the broken condition? What are the new objects hp? Can you sunder the new object? With mend repair the body? Hpw about Make Whole? Does Memory of Function return a body to life?
Bodies as objects seems like a pain in the butt can of worms. Why invent that, when bodies as dead creatures is far easier?
As for saying 2000 gp for continuous enlarge person, this is a tangent but the cost guidelines are considered a last resort, it is better to look for items which are similar and price accordingly, such a search strongly suggests enlarge person continuously is more expensive, closer to 4 or 6000 gp.
Is there an object that provides enlarge person for any period of time (other than wands and scrolls)? I'd be very interested if you could link it to me. Thanks! :)
Yes creatures and objects are mutually exclusive. They are separate defined terms in PF and one is never the other. If you have any evidence to the contrary then present it rather than just asserting it. Dead creatures are explicitly defined as creatures.
I think this disagreement is mostly a subdisagreement about the dead condition, so I'll roll this into that. I also don't see where they have to be mutually exclusive. A thing can have multiple designations.
If I misunderstood your argument then I apologize. I thought you were agreeing rather than disagreeing with Anguish. It looked to me that you were saying that conditions resulting in spells ending should be adjudicated individually. If that was not your argument I again apologize.
I was trying to referee here rather than taking a side here. The rules don't state that you have to remain a valid target to remain under a spell's influence. I think it's in the dead condition, not in the target or duration definitions. I had no problem with using those counterpoints, but the flourish of calling the point settled by assuming a rigidly complete definition seemed incorrect. My point about color spray was valid for an earlier version of the argument but a nonsequiter at that point and should have been omitted.
No, the condition is not incomplete. Not getting actions is directly implied by the condition. It explicitly says the soul leaves the body. In PF what happens when a soul leaves a body is well documented, including the inability to act.
...
The "magic leaves with the soul" is not supported by the rules at all. There has not been a single citation to support it so to say it is equally as valid as a position which has tremendous textual support is either dishonest or delusional.
Where is this well-documented? I agree that it should include that portion of the definition. I also believe it's what distinguishes most living creatures from hunks of meat (which are objects) in Pathfinder. But the specifics of it aren't spelled out to my knowledge. A creature is both its soul and its body. Which one the magic is attached to is a relevant question and is, to me, the basis of that question.
A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be.No - a dead creature is just a creature with the dead condition.If we accept your premise, is there ever a point when it becomes an object, then? For example, can a wizard bring a dozen chicken dinners along when casting teleport? What if they're not prepared in any way - just killed?
I realize the component for spider climb would be a problem regardless, which is why I ignored dead creatures in a component pouch in the question.
On another note, does the ancient morgue of a paladin order glow with overwhelming good under the effects of a detect good? I claim no, the creature only radiates good as long as it lives (or unlives or whatever) plus the lingering aura. But if the corpse continues to be the same creature, it will only become a lingering aura when the corpse is destroyed, not when the creature merely dies.
First there is no denying the premise. It is explicitly stated in the rules. Dead is listed under conditions just like blind, deaf, poisoned, paralyzed, etc... A blind creature is a creature with the blind condition. A paralyzed creature is just a creature with the paralyzed condition. To show Dead is any different you must show rules text indicating that to be the case which neither you nor anyone else has done.
Yes, wizards can bring dead chickens and yes paladins with the dead condition glow when detecting good.
The point of the dozen dead chickens is that unless he's level 36+, he can't bring a dozen creatures with him. If a dead creature never becomes an object, the teleportation limitations of bringing those dead creatures can only be adjudicated by count, not weight. So unless I misunderstand your position or it gets tweaked, you can't take those dozen chickens.
The paladins glowing is consistent with your previous arguments, but I admit I find that to be an absurd result that interpretations of the rules should attempt to avoid.
If we accept your premise, is there ever a point when it becomes an object, then?Look at it from the other way.
Once dead, do bodies take "half damage from ranged weapons" and "Energy attacks deal half damage"? Do bodies get the broken condition? What are the new objects hp? Can you sunder the new object? With mend repair the body? Hpw about Make Whole? Does Memory of Function return a body to life?
Bodies as objects seems like a pain in the butt can of worms. Why invent that, when bodies as dead creatures is far easier?
I claim yes on the hit point stuff. And that half damage goes to a different pool of hit points since otherwise they would already be destroyed. I don't have a strong sense for how that interacts with breath of life's hit point limits. Bone weapons, for example, are clearly from dead creatures but have a separate pool of hit points than those the creature used in life. Whether they start at full object hit points depends on how they died and isn't really defined, either.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.
New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
Mending is unlikely to repair a body because of the weight limit but is otherwise fine by my interpretation. Likewise for make whole. I have used it to reattach limbs on dead creatures before raising them.
Memory of function wouldn't work because it's not a mechanical problem. As an object, you would make a perfectly functional body, but it's not the same. You could also say the soul is a missing piece, although that opens up the question of if you have a soul trapped in a gem and the dead body, could it be restored. I wouldn't push that either way, but I could be convinced.
I'm not sure whether you asked those questions to help clarify, to agree, or to disagree. But I appreciate it anyway.
I think this disagreement is mostly a subdisagreement about the dead condition, so I'll roll this into that. I also don't see where they have to be mutually exclusive. A thing can have multiple designations.
And I have repeatedly asked you to show me evidence of anything in the game being a creature and an object. Saying you think a thing can have multiple descriptors requires evidence.
Where is this well-documented? I agree that it should include that portion of the definition. I also believe it's what distinguishes most living creatures from hunks of meat (which are objects) in Pathfinder. But the specifics of it aren't spelled out to my knowledge. A creature is both its soul and its body. Which one the magic is attached to is a relevant question and is, to me, the basis of that question.
There are several spells and effects which cause the soul to leave the body. Magic Jar is one example and there are several others. In all cases the body is unable to act.
The point of the dozen dead chickens is that unless he's level 36+, he can't bring a dozen creatures with him. If a dead creature never becomes an object, the teleportation limitations of bringing those dead creatures can only be adjudicated by count, not weight. So unless I misunderstand your position or it gets tweaked, you can't take those dozen chickens.
The paladins glowing is consistent with your previous arguments, but I admit I find that to be an absurd result that interpretations of the rules should attempt to avoid.
Your desire to avoid these absurd corner cases that result from RAW doesn't change what the RAW is. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence in support of your arguments despite repeated requests for you to do so.
Do you have any evidence? Please cite the rules to support your position. Not your suppositions or opinions but actual rules text.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
So now, without any evidence whatsoever, you are claiming that when a creature dies its body becomes a new object with its own hit points. Once again I will request a rules citation. Please stop just making stuff up in a rules forum.
So now, without any evidence whatsoever, you are claiming that when a creature dies its body becomes a new object with its own hit points. Once again I will request a rules citation. Please stop just making stuff up in a rules forum.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
If they don't become objects, then a dead body can never be destroyed.
I don't know of a place where "creature" is actually defined in game terms other than the "common terms" where it's stated as an active participant in the story. I know "object" is described in the magic chapter, but not properly defined there. I haven't spent hours looking for this, but it seems like you have it handy. Could you direct me to it?
I was hoping to use the fact that the body doesn't have a soul to show it doesn't qualify for its original creature type and, "Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities" to say that the body doesn't qualify for its old creature type and doesn't have a new one, it's not a creature. But I saw that outsider only points out that it's unlike "living creatures". I believe that's to contrast with constructs and undead creatures, but I admit that the "living" part stops that from being a solid point.
As for your response to my other post, I'm stating the results of my claim that a body is an object. I don't think it continues to be a creature, but the possibility of a thing that's both an object and a creature isn't contradicted by the rules to my knowledge. Graystone brought up results of the body becoming an object and I agreed with those points and doubled down by saying that refusing some of those points leads to difficulties adjudicating how the world interacts with bodies. So that wasn't really a new claim, it was a response to a request for clarification of my claim.
And if the magic left with the soul, wouldn't the magic come back when the soul comes back?
If they don't become objects, then a dead body can never be destroyed.So now, without any evidence whatsoever, you are claiming that when a creature dies its body becomes a new object with its own hit points. Once again I will request a rules citation. Please stop just making stuff up in a rules forum.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
They can never gain the destroyed condition. If a dead body becomes an object and can be given the destroyed condition then the make whole spell should be able to reassemble the body for raise dead. After all it is just an object with the destroyed condition.
See I can play the conjecture game too. I can produce rules text that the dead body is a creature. Can you do the same showing it is an object?
I was hoping to use the fact that the body doesn't have a soul to show it doesn't qualify for its original creature type...
That's nice and all, but there are absolutely no rules stating that a spell fails/ends when the target's "type" changes. And in fact, there are many spells and abilities that break when you try to add such a rule.