| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. No, because common sense applies even to strict RAW.
2. Yes. Also diseased and cursed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you prefer a more strict-RAW answer to #1: once dead, the PC becomes an object (not an ally) and is no longer a valid target for the ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. RAW? Yes.
2. No. Poisoned is not a condition, though it may cause one or more conditions. There already exists a 3rd-level spell to do this, accept affliction.
If you prefer a more strict-RAW answer to #1: once dead, the PC becomes an object (not an ally) and is no longer a valid target for the ability.
Source?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. RAW? Yes.
2. No. Poisoned is not a condition, though it may cause one or more conditions. There already exists a 3rd-level spell to do this, accept affliction.If you prefer a more strict-RAW answer to #1: once dead, the PC becomes an object (not an ally) and is no longer a valid target for the ability.Source?
I am not the poster you were asking, but whilst you are waiting for their response :
* Deadman's Contingency - your corpse is a valid Target for Teleport Object.* Akaruzug - whilst a 3.5 Monster, it comes from Curse of the Crimson Throne, which is valid for Organized Play. It's Soul Engine (Su) also refers to being able to use Teleport Object on a corpse.
* Restoration Dust - this works on corpses and its power is derived from the Make Whole Spell.
* Gentle Repose - this calls out a corpse as an Object in the Saving Throw and Spell Resistance sections, (corpses are the only valid Targets).
* Decompose Corpse - like Gentle Repose, this includes Object references in the Saving Throw/Spell Resistance section; it does also accept Corporeal Undead as Targets, but they are somewhat seen as "moving corpses". (Undead are only quasi-corpses, experiencing a different Effect than actual corpses, so they would not be Objects, leaving corpses as the only valid reference.)
* Preserve - again this Targets Objects, which it includes severed body parts and corpses in. Note that (presumably harvested) Plants are treated as Objects too, (although elsewhere I believe Plants are treated as living but Objects anyway?).
* Erase Impressions - it only Targets an Object, yet it references working on corpses.
This is not simply a mistaken text carry over/copy-and-paste of 3.5 Spells in the early set-up of Pathfinder :
Decompose Corpse - Ultimate Magic (2011).
Restoration Dust - Advanced Class Guide (2014).
Erase Impression - Occult Adventures (2015).
Preserve - Inner Sea Temples (2016).
Fair enough--corpses are objects. That said, corpses are still creatures as well, albeit creatures with the dead condition.
A corpse being an object doesn't mean it's not a creature.
Plenty of spells target "dead creature" and a few things even specify "dead ally" (skald's song of the fallen, the goal of the Deny the Reaper story feat, kinetic chirurgeon's metahealer ability). Ergo, corpses are still creatures, and (if they were allies when alive) still allies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am the above mentioned GM.
My reasoning is this:
1: This has not been relevant in our game yet. From a strict RAW perspective this question cannot be answered, since there is no clear definition of the word "ally/allies".
I would tend to rule for "no", since an ally (or enemy) must have some sort of will of its own, which a corpse does not have.
2: Poison (aswell as curses and diseases) are not conditions. blahpers rightly points out that they might cause a target to be affected by conditions, but in themselves they are not conditions.
I would not classify "poisoned" as a condition by neither RAI nor RAW. Just as a grappler and a rogues sneak attack are not conditions, even though they both may impose the "grappled" or "bleeding" conditions.
|
I think what the cleric wants is Accept Affliction, which, incidentally, separates "afflictions" like "curses, diseases, and poisons" from the specific conditions it can also transfer.
As has been stated, poisoned is not a condition in the way Pathfinder uses the word.
Fair enough--corpses are objects. That said, corpses are still creatures as well, albeit creatures with the dead condition. A corpse being an object doesn't mean it's not a creature.
Plenty of spells target "dead creature" and a few things even specify "dead ally" (skald's song of the fallen, the goal of the Deny the Reaper story feat, kinetic chirurgeon's metahealer ability). Ergo, corpses are still creatures, and (if they were allies when alive) still allies.
Pathfinder has never been a perfect simulation of reality, nor used all terms in the same way that we would apply to real life :
Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.
A corpse is not 'an active participant' in any way; in the linked example I would say that the dead horse went from a horse (the living, sentient, ensouled Creature) to a horse (the Object). Plants, even living ones, lack sentience and so are considered Objects rather than Creatures. Again, I do not see a corpse as having any Mental Ability Scores. However, I will concede that there are a lot of contradictory Spells/Effects regarding this - I even found that Breath of Life refers to a dead body as a Creature. I doubt that there will a universal consensus on this, so ... *Shrugs*
yeah because otherwise sleeping bodies don't get to be creatures either because their participation is passive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah because otherwise sleeping bodies don't get to be creatures either because their participation is passive.
* You (actively) choose to sleep or are (actively forced) under an Effect, (hence participating).
* You can make Perception checks, they are simply with a Penalty.* You still contribute to Party resources, (Spells/Skills), so others can make decisions based on your upcoming Actions/current Abilities.
* Your motivations and story-line are still actively on-going, (not on pause/at an end).
* You can keep everyone else awake with your snoring or move in your sleep, (even falling out of your bed/sleepwalk).
* You can be bitten by a radioactive spider, waking up with a giant sore and puss-like webbing oozing from your wrists. :p (As in, you are still an active Target for the enemy, scared villager coming to find/awaken you to ask for help ... or be bitten.)
It is not as if as soon as anyone stopped moving they are no longer Creatures - not at all what I said, nor what the PRD states. It is not about taking active Actions, it is about actively being part of the story/decisions. Additionally, unless I have missed something, sleeping Creatures or living "bodies", have souls and have sentience.
EDIT : I probably did not make myself clear by talking about a horse previously. xD I would say you can have an active participant Ally (living/sentient/Creature) and a non-participant dead Ally (an Object). Again, it does not look like people are going to agree on this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are (actively forced) to be dead, too. This reeks of rationalization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are (actively forced) to be dead, too. This reeks of rationalization.
All that I was trying to do was explain my reasoning, I do not see the need to be so dismissive/rude. You disagree, okay, that happens. Secondly, anyone can just throw around that line - I could say that you still seeing them as Creatures "reeks of rationalization" for your viewpoint too. That is not how I want to participate in discussions, nor do I want to get into an argument - however, I will stand up for myself. Twice I have said that it is unlikely that everyone will agree, at no point did I say my interpretation was the only one. I even went as far as identifying contradictory examples in one of my responses, showing that both sides had a basis for their reasoning. You, on the other hand, chose to make judgements on my genuine viewpoint ...
You are (actively forced) to be dead, too. This reeks of rationalization.Um, for starters, all that I was trying to do was explain my reasoning, I do not see the need to be so dismissive/rude. You disagree, okay, that happens. Secondly, anyone can just throw around that line - I could say that you still seeing them as Creatures "reeks of rationalization" for your viewpoint too. That is not how I want to participate in discussions, nor do I want to get into an argument - however, I will stand up for myself. Twice I have said that it is unlikely that everyone will agree, at no point did I say my interpretation was the only one. I even went as far as identifying contradictory examples in one of my responses, showing that both sides had a basis for their reasoning. You, on the other hand, chose to make judgements on my genuine viewpoint ...
I don't have a way to explain my post without sounding (more) like a jerk, so I'm forced to conclude that I was a bit of a jerk. I apologize.
I don't have a way to explain my post without sounding (more) like a jerk, so I'm forced to conclude that I was a bit of a jerk. I apologize.You are (actively forced) to be dead, too. This reeks of rationalization.Um, for starters, all that I was trying to do was explain my reasoning, I do not see the need to be so dismissive/rude. You disagree, okay, that happens. Secondly, anyone can just throw around that line - I could say that you still seeing them as Creatures "reeks of rationalization" for your viewpoint too. That is not how I want to participate in discussions, nor do I want to get into an argument - however, I will stand up for myself. Twice I have said that it is unlikely that everyone will agree, at no point did I say my interpretation was the only one. I even went as far as identifying contradictory examples in one of my responses, showing that both sides had a basis for their reasoning. You, on the other hand, chose to make judgements on my genuine viewpoint ...
We all have our moments, no-one conveys themselves as they might hope every single time, (I certainly do not!), so thank you for the apology.
* You (actively) choose to sleep or are (actively forced) under an Effect, (hence participating).
sure but once you're asleep, and thus "a sleeping body," your participation is entirely passive.
* You can make Perception checks, they are simply with a Penalty.
that the player actively participates says nothing about the character. the character is asleep and their perception is passive.
* You still contribute to Party resources, (Spells/Skills), so others can make decisions based on your upcoming Actions/current Abilities.
others making decisions based on your abilities is still passive participation on your part.
* Your motivations and story-line are still actively on-going, (not on pause/at an end).
i'm genuinely unsure you understand the concept of passivity.
* You can keep everyone else awake with your snoring or move in your sleep, (even falling out of your bed/sleepwalk).
still passive.
* You can be bitten by a radioactive spider, waking up with a giant sore and puss-like webbing oozing from your wrists. :p (As in, you are still an active Target for the enemy, scared villager coming to find/awaken you to ask for help ... or be bitten.)
you even used the passive voice in this one...
It is not as if as soon as anyone stopped moving they are no longer Creatures - not at all what I said, nor what the PRD states.
while someone is sleeping their participation in the story is entirely passive. i understand this isn't the intent of the text, i'm merely demonstrating how useless that text is in light of what it actually says.
Chenge the dead condition to be the dead template.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A corpse being an object doesn't mean it's not a creature.
Plenty of spells target "dead creature" and a few things even specify "dead ally" (skald's song of the fallen, the goal of the Deny the Reaper story feat, kinetic chirurgeon's metahealer ability). Ergo, corpses are still creatures, and (if they were allies when alive) still allies.
This logic doesn't necessarily track.
An escaped prisoner is not a prisoner.
An ousted CEO is not a CEO.
A removed wall is not a wall.
In pathfinder rules a 'Dead Creature' is a specific type of object, not a creature in an of itself.
1. No, because common sense applies even to strict RAW.
RAW is the opposite of common sense.
eh... in english a dead creature is still a creature. while you're right that the same isn't true about all the other examples you gave, i'm not sure that's relevant. you need to quote where the rules say that a dead creature is no longer a creature. so far we only have examples of the game referring to corpses as both.
also, the removed wall might still be a wall. if it's still intact, it's a wall even if it's somewhere else now.
eh... in english a dead creature is still a creature.
That depends greatly on the context.
To go to the example you linked to, if we have a pack train of 10 horses, and they are attacked and five are killed, and after I ask you "how many horses do we have?" if your answer is ten you clearly failed to comprehend the question in the way a reasonable person could be expected to. From the context, it is clear that a dead horse no longer meets the requirements of the category 'horse.'
Pathfinder has two main categories of target types. Objects and Creatures (yes, their are many sub-categories and narrower categories.) Dead Creatures are the second, not the first.
that's... not how that works. if you ask me "how many horses do we have?" the axioms of communication have me assume what you're saying is relevant and that the dead horses aren't, so i'll answer 5. but the situation renders the dead horses irrelevant to the conversation rather than rendering them "not horses"... if you then pointed at one of the dead horses and asked "is that a horse?" i would answer "yes" and then go on to explain why i didn't include them because i'd think you were being annoyingly pedantic.
but none of that is relevant to this context. pathfinder has two main categories of target types. objects and creatures (with several subcategories). it turns out that it treats corpses as both as far as anyone has demonstrated with the rules of the game.
and now for a more gamey reason...
imagine no one character in the party is more likely to die by a significant enough margin to warrant being the target of a contingent breath of life and, of course, you can't always be certain you'll be able to get to the target in time for the spell to work. you can cast the contingent breath of life on yourself. when you take the dead condition, they become immune for [level] rounds despite still being at -CON hit points or lower and you die but are immediately resurrected. now as long as you heal that party member to >-CON hit points before time's up, everyone's fine.
Umm... not be a noodge Vitamin C-uatroespada, but...
(Su): As a standard action, you can touch an ally and remove one condition affecting the ally by transferring it to yourself. This transfer lasts a number of rounds equal to your cleric level, but you can end it as a free action on your turn. At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect. While this power is in use, the target is immune to the transferred condition. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.So no need for the contingent BoL spell on the Domain user; they'll wake up from the Dead condition after a number of rounds equal to 3 + their Wisdom modifier.
i'm not sure you understood what i said. you do need the contingent BoL because without it the original dead person will end up dead again... edit: after [cleric level] rounds not WIS mod + 3.
If however the recipient has some way to cure THEMSELVES of the Dead condition, once revived, they could use that and then when the effect of Binding Ties wears off both the Domain user and the recipient are both alive.
actually now that i read what you said again, it's clear we're interpreting the text you bolded differently. you seem to think that the original creature must have the condition removed from itself despite currently not having the condition and being immune to it. i'm pretty sure it means that if the condition is ended on the user of binding ties that it doesn't revert to the original creature.
Sadly dead is a condition and a permanent state. It takes a high level spell to bring someone back from the dead. Like instantaneous spells once you're dead you're dead permanently (unless somebody does some magic to change that). Once a creature is dead it becomes an object. A dead creature is a descriptive kind of object not a living creature with a condition.
the question asked was about "the rules strictly by RAW," so feel free to quote where any of this is explicitly stated in the rules. nowhere do the rules make a distinction between conditions and conditions that are also permanent states. (also, binding ties is magic so you've already provided exception for it.)
the game distinguishes between conditions and afflictions. dead is a condition and can therefore, by the strictest reading of RAW, be removed from a creature via binding ties. as far as anyone has demonstrated by the rules, the strictest reading treats corpses as both objects and creatures. when someone quotes the part of the RAW that explicitly contradicts that, i'll happily concede, but until they do, by the strictest readings of RAW, the answers to the two original questions are yes and no respectively.
Every rule in the game has to be interpreted so everything is RAI. Even the most straightforward rules need interpretation. Just because some of them are extremely easy to interpret, that doesn't mean RAI isn't in place.
What did start som debate was the following situation:
One character was, as mentioned, suffering from posion and things were starting to get dangerous as his con was dropping, so another character with the family domain wanted to transfer the poison condition from the endangered character onto himself. He wanted to use the following abilty:Binding Ties (Su): As a standard action, you can touch an ally and remove one condition affecting the ally by transferring it to yourself. This transfer lasts a number of rounds equal to your cleric level, but you can end it as a free action on your turn. At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect. While this power is in use, the target is immune to the transferred condition. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
The GM looked it up and found out that poison is classified as an affliction and not at condition, so he ruled that Binding Ties could not be used. Of cource he is right by RAW - the list of conditions looks like this:
..., Dead, ....
So RAW says no go, and the character died. But if the ruling is going to be consitantly RAW based, could the listed condition "dead" then not be used? So if we hauled the body with us, we could revive the character temporarily for a couple of rounds? (It would be consistant with RAW, but really really cheesy.....)
So the questions to the forum:
1: If looking at the rules strictly by RAW, would "dead" be a condition Binding Ties could transfer?
2: Would you, from a RAI perspective, inculde poisoning as a condition, just as, to name a few - sickned, energy drained and bleeding?
1) Sure, you revive a dead creature with Binding Ties. If you don't mind being dead for a time. Since you are dead, you cannot dismiss it. Any spell active on you might go away if a dead creature is not a valid target. Your hit points will drop to minus con, and may not come back later. Their hit points might not come up. As a GM, I might let you trade your life for his, but you would remain dead.
2) As a GM I would let let you accept the poison's penalty, but not the poison. They would still have to make saves, but because the penalty was taken away, it might be easier to make.
/cevah
no problem.
what's no problem? because the thing you said after this didn't do what i asked which is explicitly contradict the rules treating a corpse as both an object and a creature.
Read Raise Dead.
Target = dead creature touched
as you can see, the target is a dead creature indicating that the corpse is still also a creature.
referring to dead creature as deceased. English terms at work. The common usage english term for "dead" is a permanent condition or state.
first, death's permanence is an aspect of our reality. in the game's reality considering death permanent is kind of subjective as there is magic that can return life to the dead. regardless, the game doesn't actually care that it's usually a permanent condition. it only asked if it was a condition and as it's on the list, it is a condition according to the rules as written.
"you can raise a creature that has been dead", obviously dead as a condition is still there but how can a condition be in the past tense? so again an english word and not a condition.
... i'm an english major and a linguist and i can't see what the past tense in that quotation possibly has to do with dead being a condition. prone is a condition and you can replace dead with prone (or blind, sickened, fatigued, etc.) in that sentence with absolutely no problems. a creature can "have been [past participle indicating condition]" in english. nothing about that sentence is evidence in favor of your argument.
My point is that key words such as "dead" are not used in a consistent manner that would guarantee a strict rulewise reading. That in turn means any strict reading is not a proof nor can it be used as such and you are proposing an unsupportable strawman. The game is a work of art, not a science or math proof.
the appearance of 'dead' with an entry on the condition list is not a colloquialism. it is clear indication that 'dead' is a condition per the rules of the game. binding ties transfers conditions.
It is also plainly stated that GM interpretation is required to make the game work. Thus ruling have to be close to RAW and reasonably acceptable to most GMs. This is why I chatted about common practice which has specifically trumped at least two strict RAW readings that I know of on a common basis at the table. What happens at the game table is what is important. This is more apparent in PFS where some gray area rulings may go one way or another depending upon your GM. It's not a bad thing as crazy RAW ideas get denied on a statistically consistent basis.
no, it's plainly stated that you are free to change the rules as you see fit and that while the GM is the final arbiter (as someone has to be) all the players involved should have a voice. RAW and other GMs be damned. which is fine. but it's also entirely irrelevant in this forum where we discuss what the rules say, not what we want them to say or think the authors meant.
Every rule in the game has to be interpreted so everything is RAI. Even the most straightforward rules need interpretation. Just because some of them are extremely easy to interpret, that doesn't mean RAI isn't in place.
of course the rules have to be interpreted. that's not particularly relevant. RAI doesn't stand for 'rules as interpreted.' it stands for 'rules as intended.' while we may be able to make reasonable assumptions about what the authors intended, we can't ever know for certain and their intentions aren't relevant to a discussion of the rules as they're written precisely because they must be interpreted. a discussion of RAW is necessarily a discussion of our interpretations, but we are limited to interpreting the words as they appear on the page not as we imagine the writers meant for them to appear because the rules as they are written are our common point of reference.
I don't see the point of the conversation of taking the dead condition from someone. It doesn't make them immune to that condition.
As a standard action, you can touch an ally and remove one condition affecting the ally by transferring it to yourself. This transfer lasts a number of rounds equal to your cleric level, but you can end it as a free action on your turn. At the end of this effect, the condition reverts to the original creature, unless it has ended or is removed by another effect. While this power is in use, the target is immune to the transferred condition. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Nothing in the ability says it heals them or removes dying. Just current condition of dead?
you are correct; they will still be at negative HP and dying, but now you can heal them and as i pointed out above use a contingent breath of life on yourself (or have someone else cast it with UMD or something) allowing you to save someone with that spell beyond the normal limit of 1 round. but it doesn't really matter if we can think of good reasons to do this right now. all that matters is that the rules don't say you can't. let someone else come up with a reason to.
that's fair. you're right. the point i was making still stands. we don't need to find a reason to do it. we only needed to answer whether or not it could be done. the rules say yes. your GM might say no. leave it to more motivated people to find a use for it. Mark Hoover 330 above suggested that if you needed DPR more than whatever your character with binding ties offers, it might be worth it if someone else can get the dead guy back above 0.