Need ruling on permanency


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hey, having a dispute about if magical effects fall off upon death. Specifically spells with a permanent duration. My argument is that of many others that spell effects remain for their DURATION and do not fade simply bc either the caster or the target recieve the "dead" condition. Unfortunately my GM disagrees and is willing to change his mind IF i can point out a paizo citation.

(More context): i have enlarge person on me, i died, gm says falls off i say no it doesnt

I CITIED the paizo "permanency" duration in the core but is unconvinced. Can someone please give me a rules citation elsewhere that points out what ACTUALLY happens. Again. Need the paizo citation.

Thanks guys!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are rules in the Magic (not Spells) chapter about the duration of spells. None of them mention the death of the caster or the subject. Furthermore, the rules about dying and returning to life say nothing about ongoing spells.

Furthermore, as a general principle, effects that are rendered invalid (because Enlarge Person targets persons not corpses), they are suppressed, not ended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's no rule.

Generally, a dead character is considered an object, and thus isn't a valid target for enlarge person, which is where your GM is coming from.

On the other hand, I'd consider it really quite churlish for a permanent spell to drop off when a character dies (and I'm a GM), so I wouldn't push for it.

Unfortunately for you, the GM has the right to interpret the rules, and you'll probably have to just suck it up. Expensive for you.

Liberty's Edge

This is a place where you have to try to think of what is reasonable, which means it's going to see table variation. Death and revival, despite how commonly it can occur, is simply not covered all that well by rules materials. At least not in any explicit manner.

Speaking in flavor terms, if you're dead then your body and soul have separated. Depending on how you are revived this could matter.

If we presume that the spell is merely suppressed, and you are revived into your former body (e.g. raise dead), then all effects remain in full. However, if you are revived into a new body (e.g. true resurrection sometimes, reincarnation always) then any effect that targeted your body would be gone (or rather, still on the old body), but all other effects would follow you. So a permanent polymorph wouldn't follow, but something like major curse would.

If we presume that the spell is dispelled if you become an invalid target, then effects targeting your body would be dispelled, but those that affect your mind/spirit would remain.

So things like curses, negative levels, and ability drain would follow regardless. (I typically treat ability damage as a physical issue and drain as a metaphysical one.)

EDIT: Short version is, find some fluff explanation of how death and resurrection works that your table likes, then extrapolate from there.


Thank you guys for the quick replys!

Thats sad day for me I guess being as paizo has decided to, once again, vaguley define their own game (pet peeve of mine) :/. But I see what youre talking about that despite being an enormously common part of the game, how death interacts with abilities and spell effects has no rule and is left to interpretation, among a very long list of other things...

On a more positive note, I do appreciate the replies and even though I am still thoroughly unconvinced my spell effect ends, I suppose I can at least take heart in the fact that even though it sucks... I do understand that my gm is not just trying to spite me; its just what he thinks is the most logical conculsion without further explicit proof


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Consider this: Spell like Bestow Curse (and many others) would need a specific continuation-beyond-death clause if termination at death was a rule.


And what about all the ward and trap spells put into place by long-dead mages?


Spells only work if you cast them on a legal target.

Tried to Charm Person on a Tiefling? - Spell fails.

Just like if you tried to charm a cardboard cutout of a monster. The spell does not lie dormant on the cardboard cutoput, just for the slim chance that someone might cast Animate Object on it so it can become active then. It simply fails with no effect.

A dead body is an object, not a creature.

Thus spells that target creatures will end with the death of the target as it fails to be a legal target.


Casual Viking wrote:
And what about all the ward and trap spells put into place by long-dead mages?

If the duration is not "concentration" it doesnt matter what happens to the caster once the spell is out.

Just like killing an Archer doesnt stop the arrow already in flight, or cure the wound in someones shoulder. It just prevent the Archer from fireing more arrows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your DM is wrong. Death and permanency are unrelated. Of course he/she can house rule, but that's what it will be.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:


If we presume that the spell is merely suppressed,
...
If we presume that the spell is dispelled if you become an invalid target, then effects targeting your body would be dispelled, but those that affect your mind/spirit would remain.

Why spell should be dispelled or suppressed because you aren't a valid target anymore?

The validity of the target is determined when the spell is cast. Not after the effect has been applied or the next week.

Ruling otherwise, beside not following the rules, would make plenty of spells useless.

Some random example:

PRD wrote:


Color Spray
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)

3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.

Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.

Color spray blinds creatures with 4 HD or less. But blind creature are immune to it. So as soon as the targets are blinded color spray stop affecting them?

Invisibility

Unless the caster has see invisibility/true seeing or he is touching the target he can't cast a spell on an invisible target.
So all targeted spells stop functioning when you become invisible (invisibility included)? Better than any form of dispel magic "become invisible, it will defeat any curse."

Target creature or object touched

Any spell with a target of creature touched is suppressed as soon as you aren't touching the target anymore?

Sorry, but checking a spell target again after a spell has been cast and the effect resolved is insane.
With a large part of the spells with a duration it would mean that they end as soon as they are cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's nothing in the rules that says spells end early because of death. As well, these are permanent effects we're talking about. This is stuff that has to be dispelled to cease. They should be sticking around. Dying doesn't cast dispel magic on everything affecting you.
And on top of that, we do know that magical effects don't by default go away on death. Otherwise, we probably would not see it specified that a lycanthrope reverts to its original form on death, or that the subject of the polymorph spell also reverts on death in 3.5.

There's also that whole issue of Breath of Life not working with the "dead body = object" thing.

And really, if it were to be true, don't you think that it would be explicitly mentioned somewhere to be true? It's a pretty glaring omission.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Spindoc wrote:

Thank you guys for the quick replys!

Thats sad day for me I guess being as paizo has decided to, once again, vaguley define their own game (pet peeve of mine) :/. But I see what youre talking about that despite being an enormously common part of the game, how death interacts with abilities and spell effects has no rule and is left to interpretation, among a very long list of other things...

On a more positive note, I do appreciate the replies and even though I am still thoroughly unconvinced my spell effect ends, I suppose I can at least take heart in the fact that even though it sucks... I do understand that my gm is not just trying to spite me; its just what he thinks is the most logical conculsion without further explicit proof

LOL: "vaguley define", "pet peeve of mine".

You GM make an oddball interpretation of the rules, based on nothing and you harp against Paizo?
Find a better reason to do that, this time you are wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, here's a question:
Does dying and becoming revived end diseases, poisons, curses, and negative levels in your games?

If dying ends these effects, it would be reasonable to say that dying ends permanent spells.
If dying does not end these effects, it would be unreasonable to say that dying ends permanent spells.

If one effect falls off, all should.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chemlak wrote:

There's no rule.

Unfortunately for you, the GM has the right to interpret the rules, and you'll probably have to just suck it up. Expensive for you.

+1

This also means finding a Paizo official post on the matter is next to impossible. This is exactly the kind of thing a GM is supposed to handle and Paizo is big on GM's being empowered to handle the small details.


There is no rule or indication anywhere that death ends magical effects by default. Just as there's no rule that going to outer space makes you turn pink. It's impossible to cover every "does not happen" instance. It's like trying to prove something doesn't exist. It's just not possible.

Death ending magical effects is a house rule. Treat it as such.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've just found something that might answer this... Though it's a bit of a stretch, because it assumes coherence in the target rules that's not particularly in evidence.

There are a number of spells that affect Target: living creature (Aid and Command, for example) and a number of spells (primarily the raise/resurrection line) that affect dead creatures (which implies that dead creatures are still creatures).

Enlarge person has target: one humanoid creature, and makes no distinction regarding the life/death state, which implies that it can function on a dead humanoid, and thus the effect won't end with the death of the target.

Liberty's Edge

@Diego

Delivery parameters are different from target parameters. "Touch" is a delivery mechanism, not a requirement of the target. Likewise for being unable to target invisible creatures. I would argue that not being able to target sightless creatures is a delivery issue for color spray, not a target issue. A sightless creature fails to see the colors, thus is never affected, but becoming sightless afterwards does nothing.

The type of invalid target I was referring to is simply the kind that says "Target: one creature" and the like. The object/creature divide is quite notable. Same with things like "one humanoid" as changing creature type is very difficult.

Besides all that, my post was entirely speculative. It's never come up in my games so I wasn't trying to offer a concrete ruling, but rather some ideas that could be brought to the DM to see what seems most palatable.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

There is no rule or indication anywhere that death ends magical effects by default. Just as there's no rule that going to outer space makes you turn pink. It's impossible to cover every "does not happen" instance. It's like trying to prove something doesn't exist. It's just not possible.

Death ending magical effects is a house rule. Treat it as such.

+1.

The spells have a duration. There is no rule or indication that death over-rules that original duration.

However, Chemlak and the others are also correct in that a GM can rule otherwise.

You could ask a few questions, to clarify how your GM is ruling this sort of thing: eg if you cast magic weapon on a bow, does it stop working if you are killed? What about Haste? Does it still work on those who haven't died, whether the caster is dead or not? And what about the negative effects? Level drain, curses, diseases, poisons, Blindness spell, etc.

At higher levels, it might be cheaper to be killed, then have Breath of Life cast on you, than to use Restoration...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:

@Diego

Delivery parameters are different from target parameters. "Touch" is a delivery mechanism, not a requirement of the target. Likewise for being unable to target invisible creatures. I would argue that not being able to target sightless creatures is a delivery issue for color spray, not a target issue. A sightless creature fails to see the colors, thus is never affected, but becoming sightless afterwards does nothing.

The type of invalid target I was referring to is simply the kind that says "Target: one creature" and the like. The object/creature divide is quite notable. Same with things like "one humanoid" as changing creature type is very difficult.

Besides all that, my post was entirely speculative. It's never come up in my games so I wasn't trying to offer a concrete ruling, but rather some ideas that could be brought to the DM to see what seems most palatable.

PRD wrote:
Target creature or object touched

is a direct citation of some spell target line. So someone, to be a valid target need to be touched.

When people argue that the target is rechecked either they are coherent and recheck it constantly, and so a as soon as the caster isn't touching the target anymore the spell end, or they are applying rules that are unwritten in a arbitrary way.

It is a typical example of Reductio ad absurdum. Applying a non-existent "target validity should be rechecked" rule has absurd effects.

You argue that that apply only when the target line say "Target: one creature and the like." Why? Based on what? Why it should be applied to some kind of target and not to others?
If we apply it to "target: one creature" what happen when the target is "target: one touched creature"? We check only half of that target line?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gilarius wrote:


At higher levels, it might be cheaper to be killed, then have Breath of Life cast on you, than to use Restoration...

Exactly.

But I am fairly positive that most of the people arguing that death cancel effects think that it will cancel only positive effects.
they will think that canceling negative effects would be too convenient. And that is right, but what make canceling positive effects right?

Liberty's Edge

I'm not arguing anything, just tossing around ideas that might help the OP find a satisfactory ruling at his table. If you want to make a big deal out of the minutiae then you're on your own.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm not arguing anything, just tossing around ideas that might help the OP find a satisfactory ruling at his table. If you want to make a big deal out of the minutiae then you're on your own.

Minutiae? You are suggesting a big rule change in the rule forum and call it "minutiae"?

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm not arguing anything, just tossing around ideas that might help the OP find a satisfactory ruling at his table. If you want to make a big deal out of the minutiae then you're on your own.
Minutiae? You are supporting a big rule change in the rule forum and call it "minutiae"?

We're talking about death, one of the least rules-explicit occurrences in the game. There are no rules. Even in a rules forum you have to fall back to guess work and fluff when that happens. I can't change a rule if it doesn't exist. (And don't even start on "then just do what the rules say even if it's dumb". Down that path lies taking actions while dead and similarly stupid stuff.)

And on top of that, I'm not even proposing to "change" these non-existent rules, just throwing out ideas for how the fluff/rules might interact were there to be specific rules. I'm not trying to be 100% rules rigorous here because it's impossible: we're already outside of that realm.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm not arguing anything, just tossing around ideas that might help the OP find a satisfactory ruling at his table. If you want to make a big deal out of the minutiae then you're on your own.
Minutiae? You are supporting a big rule change in the rule forum and call it "minutiae"?

We're talking about death, one of the least rules-explicit occurrences in the game. There are no rules. Even in a rules forum you have to fall back to guess work and fluff when that happens. I can't change a rule if it doesn't exist. (And don't even start on "then just do what the rules say even if it's dumb". Down that path lies taking actions while dead and similarly stupid stuff.)

And on top of that, I'm not even proposing to "change" these non-existent rules, just throwing out ideas for how the fluff/rules might interact were there to be specific rules. I'm not trying to be 100% rules rigorous here because it's impossible: we're already outside of that realm.

You are suggesting that we need to recheck targets after a spell or effect has been resolved. Show me a row of the rules that say that.

To make it even worse you suggest that is should be done on the whim of the person applying this non existent rule. "Rechecking applies in this situation, don't applies in another." Totally arbitrary.

And saying there is no rule addressing what happen to a spell when the caster or target dies is simply false.
Spell have a duration. As there isn't any rule saying "spell end on the death of the caster" spells with a duration don't end with the death of the caster, unless the specific spell say differently.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm not arguing anything, just tossing around ideas that might help the OP find a satisfactory ruling at his table. If you want to make a big deal out of the minutiae then you're on your own.
Minutiae? You are supporting a big rule change in the rule forum and call it "minutiae"?

We're talking about death, one of the least rules-explicit occurrences in the game. There are no rules. Even in a rules forum you have to fall back to guess work and fluff when that happens. I can't change a rule if it doesn't exist. (And don't even start on "then just do what the rules say even if it's dumb". Down that path lies taking actions while dead and similarly stupid stuff.)

And on top of that, I'm not even proposing to "change" these non-existent rules, just throwing out ideas for how the fluff/rules might interact were there to be specific rules. I'm not trying to be 100% rules rigorous here because it's impossible: we're already outside of that realm.

You are suggesting that we need to recheck targets after a spell or effect has been resolved. Show me a row of the rules that say that.

To make it even worse you suggest that is should be done on the whim of the person applying this non existent rule. "Rechecking applies in this situation, don't applies in another." Totally arbitrary.

And saying there is no rule addressing what happen to a spell when the caster or target dies is simply false.
Spell have a duration. As there isn't any rule saying "spell end on the death of the caster" spells with a duration don't end with the death of the caster, unless the specific spell say differently.

Allow me to reiterate: There are no rules for death. Any assertions about how rules should and should not work for death are invalid because it's unreasonable to expect that the writer of a duration-based spell had such interactions in mind, or even that the writer of duration-based rules in general had that in mind.

If this were law, we'd fall back to a reasonable expectations standard. Would a reasonable person expect to still be diseased if reincarnated into a new body? Probably not. Would they expect to still be cursed? Probably so. What if revived into the same body? They'd probably still expect to be diseased. What if revived from a finger of the former body? Now we're getting into tougher territory.

But this isn't law, so evidently we instead fall back to senseless mewling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:


Allow me to reiterate: There are no rules for death.

Except for those in the magic chapter, and those in the raise dead spell.

StabbittyDoom wrote:


Any assertions about how rules should and should not work for death are invalid because it's unreasonable to expect that the writer of a duration-based spell had such interactions in mind, or even that the writer of duration-based rules in general had that in mind.

Not at all unreasonable. Other RPGs manage it just fine.

StabbittyDoom wrote:


If this were law, we'd fall back to a reasonable expectations standard. Would a reasonable person expect to still be diseased if reincarnated into a new body? Probably not. Would they expect to still be cursed? Probably so. What if revived into the same body? They'd probably still expect to be diseased. What if revived from a finger of the former body? Now we're getting into tougher territory.

No, if this were law, we would see that we already have a system of rules for determining when spells end. The proposed exception, spells end when the target dies, is not supported by those rules, even though it could easily have been written in if it was supposed to apply, is not necessary for smooth functioning, and can easily be shown to raise more questions, for example under the interaction with Breath of Life.

"Reasonable expectations" is the method of last resort.


Overall I agree that death does nothing, as a general principle, to the duration of a spell. If the spell is in effect when you die I would expect the effect to continue to the end of the listed duration.

The one thing not being brought into this discussion is, oddly enough, time itself. What effect, if any, does one expect after the passage of a 100 minutes, 100 days, 100 years or 100's of centuries. This is answered by the individual GM and campaign when if comes to how permanent is truly permanent. (And likely would end up varying by the spell in question)


Mmmh... wow... I think the GM has not really think of all the implication a rule like this entice...

It means that no Undead can cast... It means that all magical traps in those old dungeon don't exist... It means that no old magical object exist since if it's crafter is dead it's no longer magical... It means that if you buy a +5 sword to someone and you go dungeonering with it if the creator of this weapon happens to die in an accident while you're down there you lose your magic weapon of all a sudden and also the 50K gold piece you spend to bought it...

Death mean the end of spell is definitely a bad idea in PF... Or else you have to change a whole lotta thing and how people apprehend magic in your world as well as the price of magical object... ;)


Spells with duration have a DURATION. They are fire and forget missiles that work until they stop. The living or dead status of the casters are meaningless UNLESS the spell requires concentration to maintain.

In that case, reference the spell itself and the concentration rules to see how to handle it. Some spells have duration's that continue after concentration ends such as Wall of Fire.


Some thoughts on permanency... I would agree the "caster's" death has nothing to do with duration of a spell, outside of concentration. Also an recipient of a spell is not necessarily the caster of the spell.

I think some people think that making a spell's duration Permanent is akin to creating a "Magic Item" I don't think so. I think the Permanent spell can fail if the prerequisites are invalidated simple because Permanency dose not impart a "Magical Item" status to the person place or thing in question... it simply makes a spells duration unlimited. Also keep in mind a destroyed magic Item (hit points reduced to zero) loses all magical properties unless the Make whole spell is used to repair the item. I would think a permancy spell is less powerful than a created magic item. It is certainly less expensive.

When people are referring to magic weapon being cast and then being effected by the casters death... a better comparison would be magic weapon being cast and then the weapon being destroyed and afterwards being repaired again with the magic weapon spell still functioning.


Death ending permanency "because death" would definitely be a house rule.

Death ending permanency if/when the permanency'ed spell has a creature as a target and not an object and thus no longer has a valid target anymore upon death, would seem to be a Paizo rule, published under the heading "target" for the relevant spell.

UNLESS you consider a corpse a "creature" still, but this has some pretty obvious complications, such as the fact that it will eventually decompose, and now you have a "Creature" dispersed throughout the entire ecosystem... It would also imply that you could float an ioun stone around the head of a dead human, for example? Rapidly stops making any sense if you go down that rabbit hole. It seems much more likely that corpses are, indeed, objects. Though to be fair, I don't think this is explicitly covered anywhere.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Crimeo wrote:

Death ending permanency "because death" would definitely be a house rule.

Death ending permanency if/when the permanency'ed spell has a creature as a target and not an object and thus no longer has a valid target anymore upon death, would seem to be a Paizo rule, published under the heading "target" for the relevant spell.

UNLESS you consider a corpse a "creature" still, but this has some pretty obvious complications, such as the fact that it will eventually decompose, and now you have a "Creature" dispersed throughout the entire ecosystem... It would also imply that you could float an ioun stone around the head of a dead human, for example? Rapidly stops making any sense if you go down that rabbit hole. It seems much more likely that corpses are, indeed, objects. Though to be fair, I don't think this is explicitly covered anywhere.

While I agree that the permanent spell will end if the corpse is destroyed that don't mean that death make a creature that has a permanent spell on it an invalid target for that spell.

When you check the target changes?
As I pointed out, if you check constantly any spell with a target of "creature touched2 will cease to work as soon as the caster isn't touching that creature anymore.
Other spells would fail as soon as they are cast if you check the target validity after the spell has been cast and the effect resolved.

If you are arguing that you need to check only on target death, please show us the specific rule saying that. It don't exist.


Diego Rossi wrote:

While I agree that the permanent spell will end if the corpse is destroyed that don't mean that death make a creature that has a permanent spell on it an invalid target for that spell.

When you check the target changes?
As I pointed out, if you check constantly any spell with a target of "creature touched2 will cease to work as soon as the caster isn't touching that creature anymore.
Other spells would fail as soon as they are cast if you check the target validity after the spell has been cast and the effect resolved.

If you are arguing that you need to check only on target death, please show us the specific rule saying that. It don't exist.

Yes, you would check continuously for target validity on all spells. Nothing to do with death as a "special" event. I agree it isn't.

I don't see any examples of spells that would be problems continuously evaluating targets. You offered some examples above, yes, but I don't see how they are problems either:

Quote:
Color Spray

Does not have a target, so cannot possibly be an example of something with target issues.

Quote:
Invisibility

The target is a creature, invisible creatures are still creatures, not a targeting problem.

Quote:
"Creature touched"

"Touched" is PAST tense and so still holds true after you move your hand away.

Present tense would be "Creature you are touching" which is not what it says.

The only thing that would be remotely close to how you seem to be reading it would be [i]passive voice[/]i, which A) is poor writing and should never be ASSUMED by default, and B) still wouldn't be what it says anyway, it would be "being touched" if so.

Grand Lodge

The Archive wrote:

There's nothing in the rules that says spells end early because of death. As well, these are permanent effects we're talking about. This is stuff that has to be dispelled to cease. They should be sticking around. Dying doesn't cast dispel magic on everything affecting you.

And on top of that, we do know that magical effects don't by default go away on death. Otherwise, we probably would not see it specified that a lycanthrope reverts to its original form on death, or that the subject of the polymorph spell also reverts on death in 3.5.

There's also that whole issue of Breath of Life not working with the "dead body = object" thing.

And really, if it were to be true, don't you think that it would be explicitly mentioned somewhere to be true? It's a pretty glaring omission.

So what happens if the target of the perm spell is removed from reality? For example, the target dies, and over the hundreds of years the body is simply and naturally disintegrated? Surely the perm spell is no longer on the target. If so, then you'd be saying the perm spell rests on the target's soul, or something similar.


It's an interesting question.

Not that I've had to make a ruling on it as a GM, but I would lead to death would end spells that require a living creature as a target (death turns living creatures into objects not dead creatures).

But I would also through dispel magic at players in general around the point where permanency becomes an options...so I would advise my players against getting too attached to any permanent spell effects.


I don't see how people can think that death would get rid of Permanent spells.

Spells have a very specific order of operations, which we can look at to know how they work.
Caster chooses spell he wants to cast -> caster chooses elligible targets -> spell goes off, effect of spell happens -> at end of duration (and not before, unless it's dispelled/dismissed), spell stops working.
Nothing in that order says that permanent spells ever have to check the target at any point after the first time you check the targets' eligibility to have the spell cast on them.

For example, Changestaff. Instantaneous duration, but as soon as you cast the spell, the target is no longer a "specially prepared quarterstaff", and thus is not able to be targeted by Changestaff.
But, common sense tells us that we don't have to check the ability of the target after the spell has been cast. A spell cast on a legal target, no matter the specific spell in question, will always be in effect as long as the duration has not ended.

So why would death change anything?
Permanent Enlarge Person, cast on you while you were living, enlarges yourself to one size category larger. When you die, there is no rule that says you must immediately check all spells active against your new non-living condition.
There is, however, specific rules that say when spells end: at the end of their duration.

And Permanent spells are, well, permanent. No reason to think otherwise.

Grand Lodge

bigrig107 wrote:

I don't see how people can think that death would get rid of Permanent spells.

Spells have a very specific order of operations, which we can look at to know how they work.
Caster chooses spell he wants to cast -> caster chooses elligible targets -> spell goes off, effect of spell happens -> at end of duration (and not before, unless it's dispelled/dismissed), spell stops working.
Nothing in that order says that permanent spells ever have to check the target at any point after the first time you check the targets' eligibility to have the spell cast on them.

For example, Changestaff. Instantaneous duration, but as soon as you cast the spell, the target is no longer a "specially prepared quarterstaff", and thus is not able to be targeted by Changestaff.
But, common sense tells us that we don't have to check the ability of the target after the spell has been cast. A spell cast on a legal target, no matter the specific spell in question, will always be in effect as long as the duration has not ended.

So why would death change anything?
Permanent Enlarge Person, cast on you while you were living, enlarges yourself to one size category larger. When you die, there is no rule that says you must immediately check all spells active against your new non-living condition.
There is, however, specific rules that say when spells end: at the end of their duration.

And Permanent spells are, well, permanent. No reason to think otherwise.

So, by extension and logic, a body that has naturally disintegrated still has a spell effect on it?


If I cast continual flame on a stick the. Burn the stick to charcoal, then break the charcoal up into tiny ashen pieces, does the continual flame still exist.

If yes, is every component of the ash is now glowing?

If no, how is it any different on a body? If my eyes rot out is the permanent arcane sight still working?

It's easier to have permanent end with the object/creature destroyed - I.e. Reduced to 0 hit points (- Con score in the case of creatures).


The tables I play at all come down on the side of the 'death ends effects that require a creature as the target'.

Also note the fact that 'living creature' appears in some spell target lines is not relevant, as this is just intended to exclude undead, constructs, etc.

Quote:


Many spells affect "living creatures," which means all creatures other than constructs and undead.


I agree Ian Bell. If the target of the spell is "creature only", then it stops functioning once the creature dies. Now if it's "creature or object" or some other variation thereof, then it can continue (like invisibility).


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I agree Ian Bell. If the target of the spell is "creature only", then it stops functioning once the creature dies. Now if it's "creature or object" or some other variation thereof, then it can continue (like invisibility).

What if the body is cut in half, are both objects still invisible?


_Ozy_ wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I agree Ian Bell. If the target of the spell is "creature only", then it stops functioning once the creature dies. Now if it's "creature or object" or some other variation thereof, then it can continue (like invisibility).
What if the body is cut in half, are both objects still invisible?

Invisibility doesn't say anything about parts being cut off, so ask your GM. I'd probably go with whatever half had the head, or if the head was cut in half I'd go with greatest mass. Or maybe they'd both stay invisible. Not specified in the rules anywhere.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.

Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.

This is not something that is covered either way. There is nothing that says spells persist after death. There is nothing that says spells dissipate after death. There is no solid evidence on either side of the argument. If you're the GM consider what is reasonable and use your best judgement, or if you're the player ask your GM. Expect table variance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.

Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.

Duration: permanent


_Ozy_ wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.

Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.
Duration: permanent

The duration of a spell has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate spells.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.

Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.
Duration: permanent
The duration of a spell has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate spells.

Well, then the ball is in your court to produce the rules.

From what I've seen in the rules, things like 'target: creature' are for aiming the spell when it is cast, not checking each round for target validity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

*Sigh* this is my point. There is not evidence on either side. Each side is trying to put burden of proof on the other, and there is no proof on either side. This is a rules argument where the rules are ambiguous. You cannot win by saying "If you can't produce rules that prove your point, then I am correct". That is a logical fallacy.

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Need ruling on permanency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.