|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some discussion of the Invisible condition in another thread got me thinking about the spell Drop Dead.
The target appears to fall down dead, though it actually turns invisible. Its illusory corpse remains where it fell, complete with a believable fatal wound. This illusion looks and feels like a dead body.
The Invisible condition, though, tells us “ If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak.”
I’m pretty certain the intent of Drop Dead is that the target is rendered undetected, and that’s how I have and will continue to GM it, but RAW, that doesn’t seem to the case because the target is almost certainly visible at the time of casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if an attacker is sure a target just died, can see the target's ally cast a spell immediately as they died, and notices a hidden creature appear in the square of the dead target it's reasonable to assume the hidden creature is some sort of bad news for them. Without knowing what happened the specifics are confusing, maybe it's some death-triggered summoning or teleporation, or perhaps the hidden creature is some spirit the ally is going to manipulate in some way, or something truly bizarre. But even not knowing it is the target the attacker just "killed" I don't think attacking the hidden thing over the dead target is out of character. It's still somewhat useful due to the flat check for targeting hidden creatures, but I agree that Undetected would make more sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hidden seems perfectly reasonable to me too. Hidden means that the enemy knows what space you are in even though they can't see you any more.
The enemies that saw the character standing there, take damage, and fall over dead do indeed know what space that character is in. Until that character sneaks away, the enemies (correctly) believe that the character is still in that space. However, they (incorrectly) also believe that the character is now dead. Or at least unconscious and dying.
If an enemy decided to attack the illusory corpse before the character could sneak away, I would handle that the same as if they managed to guess the location of an Undetected enemy and attacked the correct space. So for that part of it, I would agree that Undetected is the proper status. But the flat-check roll is nearly identical anyway, so I am not sure what practical use the distinction has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some discussion of the Invisible condition in another thread got me thinking about the spell Drop Dead.
The target appears to fall down dead, though it actually turns invisible. Its illusory corpse remains where it fell, complete with a believable fatal wound. This illusion looks and feels like a dead body.The Invisible condition, though, tells us “ If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak.”
I’m pretty certain the intent of Drop Dead is that the target is rendered undetected, and that’s how I have and will continue to GM it, but RAW, that doesn’t seem to the case because the target is almost certainly visible at the time of casting.
I agree with your take on just ruling it as undetected. Unless, of course, someone has reason to suspect they wouldn't be dead, which the spell specifically calls out as being enough to give them a perception check to disbelieve.
Moreover, I'd actually say that that's consistent with how the spell's described and not just what feels right or something like that. The way I see it "appears to fall down dead" is pretty explicitly saying that they aren't just turning invisible while standing in front of someone, there's more to the spell then that. The body doesn't just vanish, which is what typically tips people off that they're still in that square (the difference between hidden and undetected). Rather, what they see is something that makes perfect sense: The target dropping down dead in front of them. Nothing out of the ordinary there. It's not obvious that they disappeared and therefore either teleported or are still in that square.
The biggest point in favor of this interpretation, though, is the fact that the part about giving the attacker a free perception check to disbelieve in scenario's where it would be odd for the target to die is completely irrelevant otherwise, as all that perception check can do is make them hidden. You can never be less than hidden while invisible unless the creature has a non-sight based precise sense, and in that case they'd see through the illusion instantly anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention is clear.
Maybe tecnically you are right in that now invisible creature is hidden.
But you also consider that the illusion is believed by default. The enemy sees what he sees. His target has fallen over dead, and unless he intereacts with it further he doesn't normally get a roll to disbelieve that illusion.
The assumption being that the enemy is aware there is a creature in that spot, but he sees a dead creature in that spot so there is no problem to solve.
Yes it does seems a bit forced. Starting undetected makes sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I am not entirely wrong Mislead suffers similar "credibility" issues and would therefore need similar amendments.
|
Invisibility does not, by itself, make you undetected. I think that the distinction between the spells making hidden instead of undetected is intentional because to move from hidden to undetected requires a Stealth skill interaction of some sort. With the Stealth skill you can move from hidden to undetected.
I do also think that there is some GM fiat here for Drop Dead allowing a blurred line as the illusion is intended to be misleading.
Also, as a GM, I would likely impart the +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to the stealth that it lists for having cover or greater cover.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to read invisibility in the context of the rules for senses and states of awareness. It's not a specific effect of invisibility that you become hidden - that's just the general rules for senses at work.
Invisibility: you were visible. Now you're not, but you haven't moved yet, so people know where you were, so you're Hidden.
Mislead/Drop Dead: you were visible. Now you're not, and there's a corpse on the floor or a double walking away, so people no longer know you're still there, so Undetected makes sense.
I think we need to go back and reread the full invisibility rules as a whole.
The spell Invisibility makes you undetected
Being invisible can be hidden or undetected.
While invisible, you can't be seen. You're undetected to everyone. Creatures can Seek to attempt to detect you; if a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until you Sneak to become undetected again. If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can't become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic.
The mistake we are making is assuming the clause about while someone can already see you applies. It doesn't. You are already under an illusion. They don't get a perception check till they interact with you again. They can't see you at that point. So you are undetected
Ok so maybe this is a bit interpretation and is not so explicit in the spell.
BTW I think unnoticed may be the best answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you feel the need to mess with the RAW here to begin with?
Either they ignore the 'dead' target, in which case the point is moot to begin with, or they wish to interact with the 'corpse'.
And if the interaction happens to be an attack, they are attacking the right square by default (unless the character moves first), and they make a DC 11 flat check to see if the attack targets the character or not, whether they are hidden or undetected.
And the 'unnoticed' condition also has no bearing on this, because for the purpose of trying to attack the illusionary 'corpse' (for whatever reason), it offers the same protection as the 'undetected' status: The attacker makes a (secret) DC 11 flat check to see if the attack may (by accident) hit the invisible character instead of the illusion.
The difference doesn't even matter if you move from the square, because in this case, you must use a Stealth check to see if you manage to become undetected, whereas a failed Stealth check will result in a 'hidden' state, no matter whether you started 'hidden' or 'undetected'.
So what exactly is that rules chance supposed to accomplish then?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that Unnoticed would be the best way to handle it. The attacker believes you are no longer a threat, so they won't be expecting you to be invisible and still in the fight.
This would actually be a really good spell to bring along with an Assassin ally, especially if they already used Mark for Death.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After speaking with a friend, we concluded that, to us, giving an automatic hide check upon initiating the spell seems to be the most fair and reasonable. Also, giving a circumstance bonus due to the distraction of the illusion also seems appropriate.
That is too harsh in my book. Drop Dead is a 5th level spell. It should just work. There should be no initial skill check until such stage as something else happens to trigger a check as per normal illusions.
There should be a stealth check of the target as he moves away versus the perception DC of the enemy combatants. Is that how people play it?
|
|
After speaking with a friend, we concluded that, to us, giving an automatic hide check upon initiating the spell seems to be the most fair and reasonable. Also, giving a circumstance bonus due to the distraction of the illusion also seems appropriate.That is too harsh in my book. Drop Dead is a 5th level spell. It should just work. There should be no initial skill check until such stage as something else happens to trigger a check as per normal illusions.
There should be a stealth check of the target as he moves away versus the perception DC of the enemy combatants. Is that how people play it?
Drop Dead is a 5th level spell that you get to use as a reaction. It also produces an illusion that is not disbelieved unless it is interacted with. That seems appropriately powerful enough for a level 5 spell.
In 2e invisibility is not the win card it is in other editions. This is made clear in the condition text. It also does not impart a specific bonus to Stealth checks (something I think it should).
The Stealth check of the invisible creature accounts for that creature's ability to be Stealthy. It is a test of their ability to be stealthy while invisible. If the invisible creature is not stealthy, why should they benefit from being undetectable? The bonus to the check is intended to account for the illusion's very distracting nature.
Also, yes, whenever a creature moves while invisible, if it does not Sneak, it becomes hidden. (that is how I read it based on the text of Sneak)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After speaking with a friend, we concluded that, to us, giving an automatic hide check upon initiating the spell seems to be the most fair and reasonable. Also, giving a circumstance bonus due to the distraction of the illusion also seems appropriate.That is too harsh in my book. Drop Dead is a 5th level spell. It should just work. There should be no initial skill check until such stage as something else happens to trigger a check as per normal illusions.
There should be a stealth check of the target as he moves away versus the perception DC of the enemy combatants. Is that how people play it?
Drop Dead is a 5th level spell that you get to use as a reaction. It also produces an illusion that is not disbelieved unless it is interacted with. That seems appropriately powerful enough for a level 5 spell.
In 2e invisibility is not the win card it is in other editions. This is made clear in the condition text. It also does not impart a specific bonus to Stealth checks (something I think it should).
The Stealth check of the invisible creature accounts for that creature's ability to be Stealthy. It is a test of their ability to be stealthy while invisible. If the invisible creature is not stealthy, why should they benefit from being undetectable? The bonus to the check is intended to account for the illusion's very distracting nature.
Also, yes, whenever a creature moves while invisible, if it does not Sneak, it becomes hidden. (that is how I read it based on the text of Sneak)
I think the problem is that there's no reason to roll the stealth check as soon as the spell check when the spell is cast. You don't roll stealth for standing still, you roll stealth to move. Once the caster's turn comes around, they'd have to roll to Sneak like anyone else if they want to leave the space. But having them roll to be undetected when the spell is caster follows neither the RAW (that they are merely hidden) or the RAI (that they are undetected until they gives themselves away.)
|
|
The point is that it is intended as a halfway point between your stated RAW and RAI.
By RAW, the invisibled is only hidden until they take an action, Sneak or Hide (a stealth action for staying in the same square).
The consensus of RAI seems to be to just bestow undetected as a part of the effects of the spell.
The idea for giving a free Hide action at a bonus is to give the invisibled the opportunity to become undetected while not ignoring the mechanics of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, the invisibled is only hidden until they take an action, Sneak or Hide (a stealth action for staying in the same square).
I'm not totally prepared to concede that. Refer to my previous post.
You are looking at the rules for being invisible. I prefer to go with the rules for becoming invisible which leave you at undetected.|
|
By RAW, the invisibled is only hidden until they take an action, Sneak or Hide (a stealth action for staying in the same square).
I'm not totally prepared to concede that. Refer to my previous post.
You are looking at the rules for being invisible. I prefer to go with the rules for becoming invisible which leave you at undetected.
Yeah...."prefer to go with" is not really a rules argument, especially when it specifically states "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being and becoming are different. That is a rules argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Hidden states: "While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are."
Which is the case, the creature knows the space you are in (the one from your corpse) but can't tell precisely where you are (in the current case because the creature believes you are on the ground when you are not). So, it's fine by me, Hidden doesn't state that the creature knows you are alive and the spell is an illusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Hidden states: "While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are."
Which is the case, the creature knows the space you are in (the one from your corpse) but can't tell precisely where you are (in the current case because the creature believes you are on the ground when you are not). So, it's fine by me, Hidden doesn't state that the creature knows you are alive and the spell is an illusion.
The question still being if the enemy is able to notice both the creature on the ground AND possibly something hidden in front of him ("...knows the space you're in..."). If this is the case the creature can continue its routine and even resort to AoE attacks.
"Hm... my enemy went down after my last blow, but there is still something in the same square. Better use my breath weapon or spell AoE, Fireball usually doesn't care about any such shenanigans."
I'd say, if they don't have a sense that automatically overcomes the invisibility, or a reason to disbelieve the illusion, they shouldn't have a reason to attack that square again.
That is most likely intention behind drop dead.
|
|
We've come to the point of the discussion where we debate the efficacy of attacking dying PCs.
The only reason a creature would continue to attack that square was if they REALLY wanted you dead, and at that point the GM is just being petty.
I would only have creatures harm dying players in these circumstances:
1. They have an ability in their stat block that only targets dying creatures and makes them stronger.
2. They use an AoE and the most effective way to hit all conscious targets also includes the dying player.
3. They have an emanation effect and it would be going out of it's way to excluding the dying player.
Only in case 1 would I always grant a save to disbelieve, as they used an ability that SHOULD work but didn't. This should be enough to try to figure out if something is wrong. I would give a save for AoEs depending on the effect. Like, if it's a Crushing Despair, I wouldn't give a save. But a Fireball I would because the "corpse" wouldn't get singed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would add
4. They are creatures motivated by hunger and all they really want to do is grab a feed and escape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've come to the point of the discussion where we debate the efficacy of attacking dying PCs.
The whole point of the discussion is to determine if by RAW, i.e. considering all applicable rules, we might be looking at a disfunctional spell whose original purpose might have been deafeated by the sum of its governing ruleset.
How would your character react if your GM is telling you (or rather should have to tell you): "You use your first action to strike down your opponent, however you still notice someone or something hidden at the same place as the corpse. What do you do next?"
|
|
We've come to the point of the discussion where we debate the efficacy of attacking dying PCs.The whole point of the discussion is to determine if by RAW, i.e. considering all applicable rules, we might be looking at a disfunctional spell whose original purpose might have been deafeated by the sum of its governing ruleset.
I'm pretty sure that has been determined. The rules are pretty clear on that. Which is why the discussion then moved to RAI. Which then received a solid consensus that the intent was that the invisibled likely was intended to become undetected instead of just hidden.
I'm pretty sure that has been determined. The rules are pretty clear on that. Which is why the discussion then moved to RAI. Which then received a solid consensus that the intent was that the invisibled likely was intended to become undetected instead of just hidden.We've come to the point of the discussion where we debate the efficacy of attacking dying PCs.The whole point of the discussion is to determine if by RAW, i.e. considering all applicable rules, we might be looking at a disfunctional spell whose original purpose might have been deafeated by the sum of its governing ruleset.
Nah, there are still at least a couple people, myself included, who say the RAI that everyone agreed on is RAW, but no one seems to care, so the discussion kind of fizzled out. Which is fine by me, btw. As long as it's run correctly it doesn't matter whether it's read correctly XD
|
|
I'd also add
5. The creature witnessed a "dead" character come back alive because a healing effect or something else ( mostly intelligent creatures, obviously ).
The enemies should fight, as the characters, to stay alive, an not to provide a trivial combat encounter. Knowing a dead character can be healed back, they are free to think a way to solve this ( which could otherwise lead to their death ). Possibilities are plenty ( Dealing with the healer, terminate the downed player, run away, etc... )
It's not rare for players to decide to just use a small heal on downed players ( because you know, he won't be attacked ), and this in my opinion is what needs to be dealt with. Not saying that using low healing spells on dying characters is a bad idea, but it has to have pros and cons.
A "smart" enemy would kill the person casting the healing spells rather than attack downed enemies.
I would add
4. They are creatures motivated by hunger and all they really want to do is grab a feed and escape.
Good point.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, there are still at least a couple people, myself included, who say the RAI that everyone agreed on is RAW, but no one seems to care, so the discussion kind of fizzled out. Which is fine by me, btw. As long as it's run correctly it doesn't matter whether it's read correctly XDI'm pretty sure that has been determined. The rules are pretty clear on that. Which is why the discussion then moved to RAI. Which then received a solid consensus that the intent was that the invisibled likely was intended to become undetected instead of just hidden.We've come to the point of the discussion where we debate the efficacy of attacking dying PCs.The whole point of the discussion is to determine if by RAW, i.e. considering all applicable rules, we might be looking at a disfunctional spell whose original purpose might have been deafeated by the sum of its governing ruleset.
I can't see a specific rule or wording of the spell that changes the specific rule about turning invisible while being seen. I reread your earlier post and pretty much the entire thing is a RAI argument. The only thing that might deviate is the point about the free perception check if the 'death dealing blow' was "absurd". Thing is, that free perception check is not versus the invisibled target, it is versus the illusion. Thus, it doesn't interact with the invisibility.
A "smart" enemy would kill the person casting the healing spells rather than attack downed enemies.I'd also add
5. The creature witnessed a "dead" character come back alive because a healing effect or something else ( mostly intelligent creatures, obviously ).
The enemies should fight, as the characters, to stay alive, an not to provide a trivial combat encounter. Knowing a dead character can be healed back, they are free to think a way to solve this ( which could otherwise lead to their death ). Possibilities are plenty ( Dealing with the healer, terminate the downed player, run away, etc... )
It's not rare for players to decide to just use a small heal on downed players ( because you know, he won't be attacked ), and this in my opinion is what needs to be dealt with. Not saying that using low healing spells on dying characters is a bad idea, but it has to have pros and cons.
Hard disagree on that. When an enemy is down, the best way to keep them down is to make sure they are dead. Starting on a new enemy, that you know can heal itself, is not a 'smart' strategy. On top of that, the action economy of just finishing someone off is better. That lousy MAP is less lousy if the target is unconscious on the ground.
This is the perfect example of a situation that should be handled by the GM in whatever way best serves the plot and tells a good story.
What is more lame?
Playing Drop Dead Luke Styer's way (the way I prefer generally to be clear) making the caster undetected temporarily after casting, giving them more options for how to interact with the situation.
Or playing Drop Dead strictly by the rules, meaning that the opponent is aware that there is now a "hidden" entity in the same space as the their "dead" foe, enabling them to just attack the caster anyway (albeit with a flat check)?
Narratively, whether it is a PC or an NPC using the spell, Drop Dead becomes a lot more interesting when it grants Undetected. It could create a far more interesting encounter, or lead to a "dead" big bad returning to harry the party at a later date. It loses that ability if the caster is made hidden imo, since you are assumed to "know" that a hidden entity is around, even if you don't know it's exact location.
|
|
Which is why I present the free stealth check option. It is well within the boundaries of RAW for a GM not only to give a free stealth check but also give a circumstance bonus based on the circumstances.
I present this option because there are folks that prefer to play by RAW in their home groups. Also, for good or ill, Society is intended to be played by RAW as well. So, for those GMs or players that feel they have less opportunity to deviate from RAW, this is an option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would your character react if your GM is telling you (or rather should have to tell you): "You use your first action to strike down your opponent, however you still notice someone or something hidden at the same place as the corpse. What do you do next?"
The attacking character shouldn't be automatically noticing the hidden character at that location. They only see the illusion corpse.
If they are suspicious for good reason they get a Will save to disbelieve the illusion.
If the player is suspicious for any reason, they can use an action and make a Seek check to notice the hidden creature.
If they are brutal, they can attack the corpse - getting the miss chance flat check to hit the hidden creature in that square as normal.
If they are neither suspicious or planning on attacking the corpse, they will likely go and find something more productive to do for their remaining actions in their turn.
|
|
Hard disagree on that. When an enemy is down, the best way to keep them down is to make sure they are dead. Starting on a new enemy, that you know can heal itself, is not a 'smart' strategy. On top of that, the action economy of just finishing someone off is better. That lousy MAP is less lousy if the target is unconscious on the ground.
When you have a healer healing massive chunks of HP with a single spell, it's definitely more efficient to down them first.
For example, my level 7 Life Oracle heals on average 58hp with a level 4 Heal spell, plus I redirect half damage dealt to my allies to myself AND I have a Champion Reaction. Its far better for an enemy to attack me rather than my allies, as all I can do is Heal myself, and even then I have a status penalty to that healing. This is why I have Full Plate and a Shield though, so when I draw aggro I can take the hits.
A cloistered cleric is a far easier target.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree on that. When an enemy is down, the best way to keep them down is to make sure they are dead. Starting on a new enemy, that you know can heal itself, is not a 'smart' strategy. On top of that, the action economy of just finishing someone off is better. That lousy MAP is less lousy if the target is unconscious on the ground.When you have a healer healing massive chunks of HP with a single spell, it's definitely more efficient to down them first.
For example, my level 7 Life Oracle heals on average 58hp with a level 4 Heal spell, plus I redirect half damage dealt to my allies to myself AND I have a Champion Reaction. Its far better for an enemy to attack me rather than my allies, as all I can do is Heal myself, and even then I have a status penalty to that healing. This is why I have Full Plate and a Shield though, so when I draw aggro I can take the hits.
A cloistered cleric is a far easier target.
I hope that the 'smart' enemies I face would fall for the bait that is your character. Though, that would likely disqualify them as 'smart' because....
In this situation, there is a enemy downed right next to me. Because in this situation, it seems a safe assumption that it is still my turn and I have just downed the enemy. I assume this because, as you stated, your character just heals and therefore the enemy I have just downed would be up otherwise. As you stated you have champion reaction so it also is reasonable to assume that you have already used it. Looking at your obviously higher AC character, I have a choice between you or the newly downed enemy whose AC is 6 lower from being unconscious. To top it all off, as you have stated, you take half of the damage dealt to the downed character. This is even more reason to attack the downed character because I have a higher chance to both hit AND crit, both of which would deal you (the healer) damage without me having to get around your obviously high AC. PLUS, if I take your ally to the brink of death, your actions on your next turn are incredibly unlikely to be harmful to me as you are almost guaranteed to be healing your ally. AND if we just go back and forth with it, not only will you be pumping through your spells per day, but eventually you ally will just die.
So...what reason would a 'smart' enemy have to go after the healer in that situation?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question still being if the enemy is able to notice both the creature on the ground AND possibly something hidden in front of him ("...knows the space you're in..."). If this is the case the creature can continue its routine and even resort to AoE attacks.
That is my interpretation of the RAW for Drop Dead, but I don't believe that's what was intended, and it's not how I'm GMing the spell. But I think I'm probably house ruling this.
I'd say, if they don't have a sense that automatically overcomes the invisibility, or a reason to disbelieve the illusion, they shouldn't have a reason to attack that square again.
My take is that, by RAW, even without a special sense the enemy sees the illusion of the target's corpse AND is aware that an invisible creature just arrived in the same square. The enemy doesn't necessarily know the corpse is an illusion and that the invisible creature is the target. Whether the enemy would have a reason to attack the suddenly appearing invisible creature probably depends an awful lot on the particular enemy.
|
|
Hard disagree on that. When an enemy is down, the best way to keep them down is to make sure they are dead. Starting on a new enemy, that you know can heal itself, is not a 'smart' strategy. On top of that, the action economy of just finishing someone off is better. That lousy MAP is less lousy if the target is unconscious on the ground.When you have a healer healing massive chunks of HP with a single spell, it's definitely more efficient to down them first.
For example, my level 7 Life Oracle heals on average 58hp with a level 4 Heal spell, plus I redirect half damage dealt to my allies to myself AND I have a Champion Reaction. Its far better for an enemy to attack me rather than my allies, as all I can do is Heal myself, and even then I have a status penalty to that healing. This is why I have Full Plate and a Shield though, so when I draw aggro I can take the hits.
A cloistered cleric is a far easier target.
I hope that the 'smart' enemies I face would fall for the bait that is your character. Though, that would likely disqualify them as 'smart' because....
In this situation, there is a enemy downed right next to me. Because in this situation, it seems a safe assumption that it is still my turn and I have just downed the enemy. I assume this because, as you stated, your character just heals and therefore the enemy I have just downed would be up otherwise. As you stated you have champion reaction so it also is reasonable to assume that you have already used it. Looking at your obviously higher AC character, I have a choice between you or the newly downed enemy whose AC is 6 lower from being unconscious. To top it all off, as you have stated, you take half of the damage dealt to the downed character. This is even more reason to attack the downed character because I have a higher chance to both hit AND crit, both of which would deal you (the healer) damage without me having to get around your obviously high...
Shield Other ends when either me or the target is reduced to 0 HP. The spell essentially doubles the targets HP, to a max of my current HP. In most cases, I will drop before my ally, even if the enemy focus them. This is because, even a 0 Con Elf wizard at level 7 would have an effective HP of 96, combined with Life Link reducing 5 damage per turn and my reaction reducing 9 per turn. They could continue to pummel them, but I would out heal any damage they output, since I'm rolling d12s on my Heal spells. So they could do that, or focus the Oracle with 110 HP and no way to mitigate incoming damage.
|
|
...Hard disagree on that. When an enemy is down, the best way to keep them down is to make sure they are dead. Starting on a new enemy, that you know can heal itself, is not a 'smart' strategy. On top of that, the action economy of just finishing someone off is better. That lousy MAP is less lousy if the target is unconscious on the ground.When you have a healer healing massive chunks of HP with a single spell, it's definitely more efficient to down them first.
For example, my level 7 Life Oracle heals on average 58hp with a level 4 Heal spell, plus I redirect half damage dealt to my allies to myself AND I have a Champion Reaction. Its far better for an enemy to attack me rather than my allies, as all I can do is Heal myself, and even then I have a status penalty to that healing. This is why I have Full Plate and a Shield though, so when I draw aggro I can take the hits.
A cloistered cleric is a far easier target.
I hope that the 'smart' enemies I face would fall for the bait that is your character. Though, that would likely disqualify them as 'smart' because....
In this situation, there is a enemy downed right next to me. Because in this situation, it seems a safe assumption that it is still my turn and I have just downed the enemy. I assume this because, as you stated, your character just heals and therefore the enemy I have just downed would be up otherwise. As you stated you have champion reaction so it also is reasonable to assume that you have already used it. Looking at your obviously higher AC character, I have a choice between you or the newly downed enemy whose AC is 6 lower from being unconscious. To top it all off, as you have stated, you take half of the damage dealt to the downed character. This is even more reason to attack the downed character because I have a higher chance to both hit AND crit, both of which would deal you (the healer) damage
The discussion was about whether or not a 'smart' enemy would attack a downed character. I was positing that there are multiple 'smart' reasons to do so. Though, I was incorrect about how shield other worked. That is fine because, if I can kill all of the allies of 'all I do is heal', while it may take longer, it very well might be the best strategic move. AND depending on how sadistic the (BB)E is, it might see it as a fun game of 'how long can you keep them alive?'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I still don't see what difference it makes if the spell makes you start with being hidden or unobserved.
Of course your enemy knows there is a creature in your square, they supposedly just knocked out that creature, and the spell provides a handy illusionary corpse to confirm that knowledge.
Whether you, personally, are hidden or undetected in the square you start in matters not at all, because the enemy, without having a reason to disbelieve the illusion, can only target the illusion with whatever action it deigns to affect your 'corpse' with.
Then the miss chance is a DC 11 flat check, hidden or undetected notwithstanding.
Once you try to move etc., standard stealth rules apply.
So again, what difference does it supposedly make?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll put down the way we run it from what we understand of the spell and rules.
The target is rendered invisible. An illusion of the body with a fatal wound exists in the square.
The invisible target is not hidden, but the enemy does not know the invisible target is alive and moving. As far as his senses are concerned, the physical presence in the square is the dead body.
If the enemy has some experience with drop dead, then they can choose to disbelieve the illusion and swing at the square anyway knowing this clever little trick such as a high level experienced fighter or something. They will get the miss chance for an invisible creature.
As a DM I am of the mind you must determine how much experience an enemy might have with such a trick. Then you can determine what actions they might take to counter it or if they ignore it.
It is not mind control. The target isn't undetected because the enemy does know the target is in the square. So it makes sense they are not undetected and shouldn't be undetected. It's the combination of invisible with the illusion that makes it work and requires some thought by the DM as to how the enemy might react.
A creature with motion sense who doesn't rely on site is going to plow right through drop dead whereas Joe Blow guard is going to believe the illusion and move on to the next visible target.
I would say how you play this spell requires a little DM thought and understanding of the enemies experience and capability.