| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are two bloodline arcanas that are in dispute right now.
As always the specific FAQ question is bolded below.
Impossible Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Constructs are susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion) spells as if they were not mindaffecting. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
Undead Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
The examples below are not going to account for mind effecting spells since there is no disagreement there.
Belief 1: Any spell that effect living creatures now effects constructs or undead. As an example Ray of Exhaustion would work because living things can be exhausted, even though normally undead and constructs are immune to it.
Belief 2: These arcanas allow for things that specifically call out living creatures such as slay living and brilliant inspiration
Target one living creature
Duration 1 round/level and special (see below)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Target living creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude partial; Spell Resistance yes
Here is the specific FAQ question.
Does the Impossible Bloodline Arcana, and the Undead Bloodline Arcana allow constructs and undead to be effected by spells they would normally be immune to just because that effect would work against a living creature? Or is the intent only for things such as Brilliant Inspiration to effect them, which specifically calls out living creatures?
PS: Feel free to answer these in separate FAQ's. Since they are similar I just put them both into one FAQ.
The original thread that started this is here.
(Without reading the original thread)
Belief 1. The bloodline abilities state exactly what they do:
With the impossible bloodline, constructs may be affected as if they were (a) not immune to mind-affecting effects and (b) living creatures. They still retain any other immunities, resistances, and properties they had. Ray of exhaustion would not work--the target is now valid but the creature is immune to exhaustion. Being treated as "living" doesn't change that. Similarly, slay living would have a valid target but still fail because constructs are immune to spells that require Fortitude saves but don't affect objects.
With the undead bloodline, undead may be affected as if they were (a) not immune to mind-affecting effects and [if ex-humanoid] (b) humanoid. (Note that there's no "living" verbiage here.) You could cast charm person on a skeletal human since it would be affected as if it was (a) not immune to mind-affecting effects and (b) humanoid, but you couldn't target brilliant inspiration or slay living on it because it isn't a living creature.
Not sure I fully understand what you're asking. I believe in the case of Impossible bloodline, constructs count as living creatures for your Enchantment (Compulsion) spells. A dominate person would not work, because they still aren't humanoid. A dominate monster spell would. The dominate monster spell would probably still fail against most golems (which tend to have Magic Immunity over and above their immunities granted by the Construct type.)
For the Undead bloodline, I think it still specifies your mind-affecting spells, going by what you quoted. That means a charm person could affect a humanoid skeleton or undead, but you would need a charm monster for different kind of undead (possibly a charm- or dominate animal spell or similar to control an animal skeleton or zombie). Undead bloodline does not say to count them as a living creature, unlike Impossible bloodline (going by what you've quoted) so I don't believe they will be affected by a slay living but that spell is neither enchantment (compulsion) nor a mind-affecting spell anyway, so I don't think it would have applied.
The bloodline makes them effected by enchantment spells and allows them to be treated as living creatures. The question is on what the extent of the living creatures statement applies to.
I believe he is drawing the distinction (or lack thereof) between allowing them to be affected by it and allowing them to be targeted. Only one of those options makes sense as if they aren't able to be targeted then the arcana wouldn't do anything.
I believe he is drawing the distinction (or lack thereof) between allowing them to be affected by it and allowing them to be targeted. Only one of those options makes sense as if they aren't able to be targeted then the arcana wouldn't do anything.
What about constructs and cure spells? The target is creature but the effect is on living creatures or undead. In this case, effect makes sense.
I don't get the counter argument. Is it that they purposefully wrote it to NOT work? Like they intentionally made a GOTCHA! feat?
I don't get the counter argument.
The counter is that is does what it says it does: treated as humanoids/living creatures. So when casting a spell you treat the target as is that type instead of what type it is. For instance, living creatures have a con, can be healed with positive energy, aren't immune to necromancy, ect.
If it's meant for targeting, then it does so poorly: compare to "An oozemorph treats her creature type as both ooze and her base creature type from her race for the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as bane weapons and a ranger’s favored enemy)." That clearly states what it does.
The sorcerer arcana's are worded with 'treated as', which is like the 'treated as' in other abilities like 'treated as a one handed weapon' which generally means you follow the mechanics for how a one handed weapon is used instead of it's normal type. So IMO treated as should mean treated as and not 'changes targeting'.
"Living creature" is in no way a type. Construct, undead, humanoid, etc are types. You can be unliving and not immune to all necromancy effects. Undead are non-living, and do not have a blanket immunity to necromancy effects. They are immune to a lot of them because of other reason.
Inevitables are described as living constructs, and yet are still immune to necromancy effects.
Constructed (Ex) Although inevitables are living outsiders, their bodies are constructed of physical components, and in many ways they function as constructs. For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), inevitables count as both outsiders and constructs. They are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Inevitables are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. They are not at risk of death from massive damage. They have bonus hit points as constructs of their size.
Being living or not ultimately has no bearing at all on whether or not you are immune to necromancy as a whole.
I don't get the counter argument.The counter is that is does what it says it does: treated as humanoids/living creatures. So when casting a spell you treat the target as is that type instead of what type it is. For instance, living creatures have a con, can be healed with positive energy, aren't immune to necromancy, ect.
This is patently false. It does only what it says it does--no more, no less.
1