Are there any specific rules for when a character comes back to life (i.e. via Breath of Life) and the negative conditions that were on that character?
For instance, let's say a character is fatigued, staggered, blinded, and suffering from Hideous Laughter when they're killed. Later that round, they're brought back to life from BOL.
Are they still blind? Staggered? Fatigued? Laughing?
Thank you
|
Yes, he still suffers from the conditions. Breath of Life doesn't say it removes them.
However the character *is* dead, if only for a few moments. And this is where the rules don’t explicitly answer the question. I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.) Not the only answer, but the one I use.
The way I look at it, Breath of Life is actually preventing you from dying, rather than actually bringing you back. You are technically dead, but still close enough to life to be affected by the spell. The fact that the target of the spell is creature touched kind of supports that. As Belafon pointed out a corpse is an object not a creature, but the spell has an explicit exception for that. So, if you are still considered a creature so the spell affects you, you should still be a creature for other thing.
From a scientific standpoint I don’t see why a disease or poison would go inert and no longer affect someone. Fatigue and exhaustion have physical reason they are affecting you that are similar to a poison.
|
Yes, he still suffers from the conditions. Breath of Life doesn't say it removes them.However the character *is* dead, if only for a few moments. And this is where the rules don’t explicitly answer the question. I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.) Not the only answer, but the one I use.
"The rules don’t explicitly answer the question" isn't a valid argument.
The spells and effects have a duration, being dead doesn't change that. To have them end prematurely you need a rule that says"Being dead end prematurely the effect".
I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.)
What is the target of a spell or effect matter only when you are targeting that spell of effect. After that point, it doesn't matter.
However the character *is* dead, if only for a few moments. And this is where the rules don’t explicitly answer the question. I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.) Not the only answer, but the one I use.
This is, still, incorrect. Dead creatures are both creatures and objects - entirely depends on context. If dead creatures are objects (and only objects) BoL cannot even be used
Target creature touched
And raise dead has a wierd target line
Target dead creature touched
Shouldn't that instead be "object that used to once be a living creature"?
And blindess/deafness which reads:
Target one living creature
Why do they need to specify living if dead [creatures] are no longer creatures and just objects.
|
|
"The rules don’t explicitly answer the question" isn't a valid argument.Yes, he still suffers from the conditions. Breath of Life doesn't say it removes them.However the character *is* dead, if only for a few moments. And this is where the rules don’t explicitly answer the question. I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.) Not the only answer, but the one I use.
Ummm.. not sure what you think that paragraph you quoted from me says. I will absolutely agree that "The rules don't explicitly answer the question" is not a sentence intended to win an argument with a "right" and "wrong" answer.
But it's certainly a good preface to "so here's what I do." (Which is what I said.)
|
|
"The rules don’t explicitly answer the question" isn't a valid argument.Yes, he still suffers from the conditions. Breath of Life doesn't say it removes them.However the character *is* dead, if only for a few moments. And this is where the rules don’t explicitly answer the question. I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.) Not the only answer, but the one I use.Ummm.. not sure what you think that paragraph you quoted from me says. I will absolutely agree that "The rules don't explicitly answer the question" is not a sentence intended to win an argument with a "right" and "wrong" answer.
But it's certainly a good preface to "so here's what I do." (Which is what I said.)
Because "The rules don’t explicitly answer the question" doesn't exist in this contest.
The rules explicitly answer the question: if something doesn't say that it ends a spell effect, it doesn't end it.They simply state it the other way: "thing X end spell A, B, etc."
|
|
Diego, in one of your posts above you stated that a spell like breath of life would not end a condition I would have to disagree with that, bleed would end with Breath of Life ends bleed as it heals hit point damage. I would say it would depend on the condition. Generally in games that I've played in when a Raise dead was cast it would be followed by a heal and restoration. Those spells would end all conditions. Resurrection and True resurrection also would end all conditions as the spells state full hit points, strength and vigor no constitution loss or negative level loss.
Bleed will be removed because any healing effect will remove Bleed and BoL is a healing effect.
The rules explicitly answer the question: if something doesn't say that it ends a spell effect, it doesn't end it.
And the reverse is true: if something explicitly reverses a condition, it reverses it.
Resurrection removes several forms of blindness, limb losses upon death, scarring upon death, and so on because it says:
"The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death."
It probably doesn't remove cataracts, limb losses, or scars that have happened before the death as they have become part of the character, but that isn't really clear. Every GM will have to decide what is removed/cured.
It doesn't remove curses, level losses (exception, you will recover enough to levels to not instantly die as soon as you are resurrected), geas, and so on.
It doesn't remove curses, level losses (exception, you will recover enough to levels to not instantly die as soon as you are resurrected), geas, and so on.
It probably doesn't even remove level loss as it follows the rules for Raise Dead, where if you are losing your last level due to negative levels, instead you take 2 Con drain. Obviously the wording of Raise dead says "If you're level 1" and having your level-1 negative levels isn't technically you being level 1, but I find it hard to believe that this exception to a return from death effect (where normally gaining another negative level would just be death again) is meant to turn off as soon as you hit a really low xp threshold, especially for a spell only able to be cast by the party as early as level 9, and only able to be afforded by a single character's WBL after level 4.
Needless to say, your body is supposed to be coming back to full physical health with a (True) Resurrection, and anything that is based on damage to your body should be restored (and I would argue that this includes the effects of a Regenerate spell) would be cured, while anything related to the soul, e.g. curses, energy drain, spell effects that are hampering physical form, etc. would all be lasting after revive.
|
|
Resurrect can return to life an undead, and some of those are created by draining all levels from a person. So it should allow you to recover enough levels to stay alive, maybe turning them to con loss.
Resurrection and above surely restore you to the state you had immediately before death. It is less clear if it restores what you did lose before death. Generally, it is not a problem, as Pathfinder has very few ways to make you lose pieces of your body.
Resurrect can return to life an undead, and some of those are created by draining all levels from a person. So it should allow you to recover enough levels to stay alive, maybe turning them to con loss.
Right, that's what I was saying, not that it particularly matters in the case of returning a wight/spectre/etc. because the con drain will be removed as soon as you remove the first negative level. Although maybe a bigger question comes from "are those negative levels from the monster all still be temporary because you just died in the fight where you got them, meaning that they also are all removed along side the 1 permanent from Resurrection?"
Resurrection and above surely restore you to the state you had immediately before death. It is less clear if it restores what you did lose before death. Generally, it is not a problem, as Pathfinder has very few ways to make you lose pieces of your body.
The way I believe it is implied is that you gain a new and whole body from (almost) nothing, especially since even if you didn't any cleric that could cast Resurrection can also cast Regenerate. Of course, some people might still want to keep their scars, etc. Then True Resurrection just lets you do it from actually nothing left of the body.
The only real thing we get one way or another is the Death Clutch spell:
Chanting an unholy litany, you reach out with a grasping motion toward your target and cause its heart to leap out of its chest and into your hand. A target with 200 or fewer hit points remaining that fails its saving throw is instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative. The creature is staggered until the beginning of your next turn, at which point it dies. If the affected creature receives a regenerate spell before the beginning of your next turn, the creature gains the normal benefits of that spell and, thanks to its heart’s regeneration, it doesn’t immediately die when your next turn begins. If a creature that dies from death clutch is brought back from the dead by a breath of life or raise dead spell, it must also be targeted with regenerate on the following round to restore its missing heart or be unable to return to life.
A target with 201 or more hit points that fails its saving throw manages to keep its heart from leaping out of its chest, but it is still staggered for 1 minute and takes 1d4 points of Constitution drain and 1d4 points of Constitution bleed.
Regardless of its current hit points, if the target succeeds at its Fortitude save, it is still staggered until the beginning of your next turn as it feels its heart wrenching within its chest.
The fact it doesn't just mention Raise Dead and also mentions another spell that "functions like Raise Dead" but not (True) Resurrection would imply that Raise Dead brings your body back as it is, while Resurrection+ actually gives you a complete body. Of course, it could just be an oversight, or it could be explained that Resurrection can still bring you back with your scars because they became a part of your soul, and so on.
|
|
Resurrection can raise you from a lock of hair, true resurrection from nothing, so they create a new body.
My doubt is what "body template" is used for the restoration. As those spells (differently from Reincarnate) don't rejuvenate you to the start of adulthood, restoring you to "complete strength" and " full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells" isn't the same as returning you to your optimal condition.
I think you will return to the same condition you had before death, but with full hit point and all temporary ability damage removed. But mine is an opinion, not something clearly stated by the rules.
Yes, he still suffers from the conditions. Breath of Life doesn't say it removes them.However the character *is* dead, if only for a few moments. And this is where the rules don’t explicitly answer the question. I personally rule that any spell or conditions that target creatures end when you die. (Because you are now an object instead of a creature.) Not the only answer, but the one I use.
Obviously you're free to do as you will, but I'd like to offer a different perspective.
Even if a character changes from creature to object, it's a reach to assume that spells that only target creatures go away on that transition. Sure, you can't cast blindness/deafness on a corpse. But that doesn't mean the existing spell is terminated if it was originally cast on a living creature.
I know you're not remotely new to the game, but I think playing the type-has-changed card opens up room for unintended consequences. Someone subject to flesh to stone becomes a statue. Maladies gone on reversion to flesh? What about beneficial buffs?
Next up, this card you're playing talks about spells. What about an oracle that is blind? Corpses can't have curses, right? So the blindness curse ends, right? Why would it come back if they return to life... if your houserule is that negative conditions don't?
Again, I totally get it that you've likely done what you've done for a small eternity and never ran into difficulties, but I see a bunch of room for those difficulties. It seems much more intuitive and safe and consistent to just have (temporary) death be specific to what it is.
If you're dead, you can be treated as both a "Dead Creature" and an "Object". Otherwise, spells that only allow targeting of "Dead Creature" cannot affect you if you're merely an "Object". Also, spells with ongoing effects do not end on creatures who die, their durations persist and end once the duration expires, so you can additionally be thought of as a "Creature" as well-- if you merely became an "Object" when you die, then these spells would immediately cease, and that's not the case. So, while dead, you become Schrodinger's Corpse, because you can be thought of as a "Creature", a "Dead Creature", and an "Object". The only spells/effects that cannot affect you while you're dead are spells/effects that require "Living Creature" as a target.
Also, just to throw a wrench in things, I don't think Paizo has ever officially said that corpses can be treated as objects. That ruling was from an FAQ for 3.5E, and everyone liked it so it became unofficially grandfathered into Pathfinder 1e.
Personally, I treat corpses as "Creatures", "Dead Creatures", and "Objects", and doing it this way clears up all the arguing at the table.
Yes, breath of life would not work at all, unless you consider "Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature" to override the target line. Which RAW you probably shouldn't, but almost everyone would.
I'm not following what you are saying here. BoL can target a creature (alive or dead). The target line of the spell is never overwritten. The target must still be valid. A object is not a valid target for BoL ever. Whether that is a dead creature that is only an object, or whether that is an actual object like a shield.
Something can be a "dead creature" without necessarily being a creature, just like something can be a "green house" without necessarily being a house.
No. Creature has a specific rules mechanic meaning in pathfinder. The rules never refer to something being a creature if it is not, in fact, a creature.
As an aside, a green house is still a house in the sense that it provides a comfortable environment for plants. eg, it is a house for plants (but not a house for people).
Because undead and constructs are not living, but are definitely still creatures.
Fair enough. I'll grant you this one.
I feel like people take the "dead creatures are objects" rule and run it like the you count as your own ally FAQ, and forget the context and the other half of the FAQ.
|
|
The suggestion that people who are not writing rules text frequently provide inaccurate names for things and this should be factored in when evaluating the discussed rules text has to be the most asinine argument I have read in a long time.
What if it’s one of the people that do write rules text saying that people are trying to parse the language finer than it was intended?
How about if he explicitly says ”sometimes we make mistakes and don't write things as clearly as we should?”
The suggestion that “because it is published it is inerrant and inherently complete” is far crazier. All I have to do is pull up Rev F Notice 3 of the manual for the equipment I am currently troubleshooting to know that mistakes get made. Heck, I’ve already sent the manual owner four places where specific bits of information in that latest revision still conflict with reality. (All acknowledged as changes to be made in the next revision.)
Indeed. But "'creature' has a specific meaning" is only relevant if dead creatures are in fact still creatures, which is the point that is under debate.
Given the most straight forward reading of plain English is that a dead creature is a "creature" that is dead, its a massive stretch to consider it would have any meaning that does not include the plain defintions of "dead" and "creature".
For example, if I told you that I saw a dead creature out in the woods, and what jumped to your mind was that I saw a rock, or a stick, or a garbage bag, or a queen sized mattress, or anything other object that was not in fact a creature - then we can't really have a discussion about it anymore because we do not have a shared basic understanding of what the words "dead" and "creature" mean.
OK, you don't like that particular example? Let's try Bombay duck, which definitely is not a duck (not even if you stretch).
I don't think this one is any more applicable. If I didn't know what a Bombay duck was, it would be reasonable for me to ask why it does not qualify as a duck, and you could reasonably explain why it is not actually a duck. But if I were to ask you what a dead creature was, then I cannot conceive of any explanation you might give that would show why
Something can be a "dead creature" without necessarily being a creature
"dead creature" isn't the name of something like Bombay duck is, dead creature is a descriptive state [that is, dead] of something that is defintely a creature.
EDIT: I missed the implication the first time around, but you referred to "dead creatures are objects" as a rule, albeit one with another half. I was not actually aware of an explicit rule on the matter, and my belief that dead creatures are objects is based on the fact that corpses lack the qualities that creatures typically share (and the belief that it breaks fewer things than the alternative). If you can actually cite a specific rule, that would certainly be helpful.
Now this is an interesting question. I don't have a rule, but I have seen the dead creatures are objects before discussions, and there appears to be some nebulous FAQ carry over from 3.5 or some developer commentary or something that has produced the "dead creatures are objects", but I have never seen the elusive FAQ/commentary in question. Hence my guess is that we were to see the full context of this unwritten rule that it would add light to the discussion.
Let me finish with a different analogy - and a recap of my position.
If we have a sword, and the sword becomes broken, it does not cease to be a sword. (It might cease to be functional or useful, but it is still a sword). A dead creature is still a creature, regardless of whether it is functional or not. I don't even object to treating it as an object in certain contexts - it makes perfect sense to do so. But none of that changes it from being a dead creature. And there isn't any actual reason it cannot be both a dead creature and an object. Or maybe more succinctly, dead creatures are a specific subcategory of objects. And as such has certain properties that are not common to all objects - eg are valid targets for certain spells that cannot target objects in general.
Given the most straight forward reading of plain English is that a dead creature is a "creature" that is dead, its a massive stretch to consider it would have any meaning that does not include the plain defintions of "dead" and "creature".We are not debating whether a "dead creature" meets the plain-English definition of "creature" (it certainly would do, assuming it did before it was dead). We are debating whether it is a "creature" as per the Pathfinder term of art.
If we have a sword, and the sword becomes broken, it does not cease to be a sword. (It might cease to be functional or useful, but it is still a sword).And there we have it. "Sword" is not a term of art - the definition of "sword" in pathfinder is the plain English definition of the word (weird edge cases like two-blade swords notwithstanding). As noted above, the same cannot be said of "creature".
Under what context are you suggesting creature is a term of art here? In the rules it is used as a general term to indicate a character that has self-autonomy. That's not really an artistic choice.
Given that the rules are written in plain English, I don't think you have any ground to stand on here. Sometimes the rules use specific definitions of words when those words might have multiple meanings, but they still use an existing definition, not make up entirely new defintions.
But even if creature means something other than what the plain English means it does, appending dead to the front of it does not change what a creature is - it uses the same definition of what a creature is in all cases where it is used.
The context of the PF1 rules, where that is exactly what it is.
In that sense the entire written ruleset is art. So if it is all art how can we be certain that any word actually means anything at all and isn't simply an abstract concept? There is a difference between terms that have rules mechanics behind them and things that are more flavor (or what I would refer to as the art). Creature is a mechanics term. Hit dice is a mechanics term. As are AC, etc. The art side is the setting, the high fantasy, the class names, the feat names (but not the feat mechanics) etc.
But even on the artistic side of things, words still have meaning. The dieties of pathfinder are all artistic choices, but using the word deity still conveys the plain English meaning that is packed with that word.
Something does not have to be "artistic" to be a term of art; it just has to have a meaning in a particular context distinct from or more specific than its general meaning. In this particular case, "indicating self-autonomy" is exactly the point - corpses do not tend to have a lot of that!
Neither do unconscious people. Are unconscious characters also treated as objects? Neither do characters that are mind controlled/possessed. Are mind controlled characters also treated as objects? Given that death is as temporary as unconsciousness, and given the setting has a definite afterlife in which souls still think and function...
Since this is trivially falsifiable, just by (for example) pointing out that sorcerers, bards, etc have "spell slots", despite nothing ever being slotted into them, I would say that it is you who lacks ground on which to stand. Or if you do not like that example, how about that "hit dice" have nothing directly to do with hitting and only occasionally have anything to do with dice. Or that no dictionary I am aware of defines "archetype" as "package of modifications, additions, and/or subtractions to another game construct".
You've misunderstood my argument. I don't mean a strict word for word definition. It is the conveyed meaning of a word. If the rules say "sword", they don't actually mean "leather bag". The strict definition of sword would include a metal blade, and a hilt with a handguard. But certainly in pathfinder a sword can be made of other materials, may or may not have a handguard, but we easily understand by "sword" a object of some length, usually straight, but curved "swords" are also feasible, and can be used for slashing or stabbing things. And when the rules say creature they don't meaning something that is not a creature.
If I say a "curved sword" then you understand that I'm talking about a specific subset of swords, or if I say a "straight sword" you again understand that I'm talking about a specific subset of swords (and you also understand that I'm not talking about swords that are not gay swords - though with intelligent magic items that could theoritically be possible in the pf universe). But you still know what a sword is both in general, and the specific subset I'm talking about. If I say dead creature I'm talking about a specific subset of creatures.
As for your examples:
Hit dice - indicates a number and type of dice we roll to determine our hit points. Our hit points determine how much damage we can take from being hit. So the term very much has to do with dice, and hitting.
Spell slot - slots are something you can put another thing in. In this instance the thing you can put in this specialized slot is a spell.
In both of these examples you are also trying to use things that are very abstract and do not actually exist in the real world. Creatures are a very real thing in the real world, not abstract concepts.
Archetype - an archetype is something that is typical. A fighter with no archetypes has a specific set of skills/abilities. Pick an archetype and you get a different set of skills and abilities. All figters that pick the archer archetype will all have the hawkeye ability at 2nd level - thus being typical of the archetypes theme of "The archer is dedicated to the careful mastery of the bow..."
But let me ask one simple question: Where in the rules does it state that a dead creature is an object?
But even on the artistic side of things, words still have meaning. The dieties of pathfinder are all artistic choices, but using the word deity still conveys the plain English meaning that is packed with that word.As I said in my previous post "term of art" does not have anything to do with being "artistic". If you do not want to take my word for it, you might want to look it up in your search engine of choice before you talk about it any further.
given the setting has a definite afterlife in which souls still think and function...You get that this supports my argument, not yours, right? Given that the functioning soul in the afterlife is a creature but not a dead creature, and is a separate entity from the corpse that is the dead creature. So thanks!
Archetype - an archetype is something that is typical. A fighter with no archetypes has a specific set of skills/abilities. Pick an archetype and you get a different set of skills and abilities.So a PF1 archetype is literally the opposite of the plain-English definition. I had not thought of it like that, so thanks again!
Your ability to wrestle with the words to a complete misunderstanding is astounding.
But let me ask one simple question: Where in the rules does it state that a dead creature is an object?We literally had a conversation, further up this same page, about how there is no such rule (nor is there any explicit rule that dead creatures are still creatures).
So, no rule that says so. Without a rule that says otherwise, we have to use the plain English meanings for understanding. I don't have to show a rule that a creature is still a creature even if dead, because plain English is obvious in that regard. You have to show a rule contrary to that to prove your point.
I apologize for my uncalled for and inappropriate comment.