Flesh Rot (Sp)
As a standard action, you can make a melee touch attack and expend 1 point of mental focus to cause the flesh of a living creature to rot and wither. If the attack hits, the target takes 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per occultist level you possess. For every 4 occultist levels you possess beyond 3rd, the target takes an additional 1d8 points of damage (to a maximum of 5d8 at 19th level). If you miss with the melee touch attack, this power is wasted with no effect. You must be at least 3rd level to select this focus power.
I'm interesting how it work with:
1. undead
2. swarm
3. construct
4. elemental
5. ooze.
I have some doubts coz in description "flash" and "living creature".
I did not see official determinations for this terms.
As written? Living creatures only, as clearly stated in the ability (I'm just happy to see a OA ability that's clearly written).
If your GM is (or you as the GM are) flexible, you could apply it to fish golems, hungry flesh, corporeal undead etc. (I'd be strongly against the last one unless it was an undead creature wearing living flesh)
Fyi, elementals and oozes are living creatures. So it's unclear what constitutes having flesh - really a gray area. I'd rule they'd be affected by not being excluded. Flesh is both a specific and generic term unfortunately.
PS: I take back what I said about the ability being clearly defined. Curse you, OA and your lack of support.
I have some doubts coz in description "flash" and "living creature".
I did not see official determinations for this terms.
"“living creatures,” (...) means all creatures other than constructs and undead." CRB pg. 215
"A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures" B1 pg. 314
There is no rule for what constitutes a fleshy creature, so you have to use common sense for that.
PS: I take back what I said about the ability being clearly defined. Curse you, OA and your lack of support.
Nah, the ability is clear enough, not any less clear than hundreds of other things that interact with "flesh".
PS: I take back what I said about the ability being clearly defined. Curse you, OA and your lack of support.Nah, the ability is clear enough, not any less clear than hundreds of other things that interact with "flesh".
Okay, then does an Owb have flesh? What about a Shae? A Magma Ooze? Or a Bonewrought Willow? A Mihstu or a Vampiric Mist? A Prana Ghost? Fire Elemental? Or any number of living creatures that lack flesh but otherwise fit the bill of "living creature". Is flesh being used to refer to "meaty goodness" or "generic body"?
I'll give you that in other abilities and spells that reference "flesh" basically give the definition to GM discretion, but that's a point against clarity not for.
At least the Unlock Flesh spell specifies that it doesn't work on incorporeal creatures.
Are you saying there's no chance a player wouldn't try to argue their way into using said ability on any and all creatures mentioned above? I'm not saying I'd personally have issue making a ruling, but I am acknowledging that a ruling would be needed.
I had a player argue that sight had nothing to do with Mesmerist's Stare and they're not completely wrong.
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying it is clear who can be affected by the ability, but rather that the lack of clarity does not come from the ability's wording but comes from the game not defining creatures as fleshy or non-fleshy.
It's not "OA and [its] lack of support", but the game never making that distinction explicit - it dates back all the way to the CRB, e.g. with Flesh to Stone which simply says "Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell." The ability shouldn't be worded any different, monster entries should denote wether a creature has flesh or not.
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying it is clear who can be affected by the ability, but rather that the lack of clarity does not come from the ability's wording but comes from the game not defining creatures as fleshy or non-fleshy.
It's not "OA and [its] lack of support", but the game never making that distinction explicit - it dates back all the way to the CRB, e.g. with Flesh to Stone which simply says "Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell." The ability shouldn't be worded any different, monster entries should denote wether a creature has flesh or not.
We do agree on the problem - that the term "flesh" is treated as a mechanical term when it isn't. We also agree that this is a problem that predates this specific ability.
Where were disagree: It seems needlessly tedious for every single monster entry to have a description on whether it has flesh, skeleton, and a dozen other attributes that niche spells target.
Instead, the spells in question doomd just contain a sentence of two along describing what they mean by flesh and then specifically leaving it up to GM interpretation in corner cases. Many spells do this.
The issue with OA's lack of support (and honestly, clear and concise writing) is no secret. The fact that this specific issue is shared by other, older spells and abilities doesn't change the overall problem.
|
An elemental is a being composed entirely from one or more of the four classical elements—air, earth, fire, or water—or the less common element called aether
I will not allow something that affects only flesh to affect an elemental.
The problem, as usual, is if the "flesh" part in " cause the flesh of a living creature to rot" is meant to be a rule or is simply a speech form, and what matters is the "living creature" part.I would consider it part of the rule but I have seen people interpreter similar text differently.