Going to say that the RAW disagrees, and that even if it didn't, it's TGTBT.
Final SacrificeSpell 2
Evocation Fire
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 219 2.0
Traditions arcane, divine, occult, primal
Spell List elemental
Cast somatic, verbal
Range 120 feet; Targets 1 creature with the minion trait that you summoned or permanently controlYou channel disruptive energies through the bond between you and your minion, causing it to violently explode. The target is immediately slain, and the explosion deals 6d6 fire damage to creatures within 20 feet of it (basic Reflex save).If the target has the cold or water trait, the spell instead deals cold damage and gains the cold trait in place of the fire trait. If used on a creature that isn't mindless, this spell has the evil trait. Attempting to cast this spell targeting a creature that you temporarily seized control of, such as an undead commanded by command undead, automatically fails and breaks the controlling effect.
Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.
And:
Death Effects and Instant Death
Source Core Rulebook pg. 461 4.0
Some spells and abilities can kill you immediately or bring you closer to death without needing to reduce you to 0 Hit Points first. These abilities have the death trait and usually involve negative energy, the antithesis of life. If you are reduced to 0 Hit Points by a death effect, you are slain instantly without needing to reach dying 4. If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.
So Final Sacrifice does not explicitly state it skips the 0 HP part. It might be implied. And the general rule that discusses skipping the 0 HP part very specifically calls out the Death trait, which Final Sacrifice does not have. The way Death effects specify you can die without reaching 0 HP first sort of suggests you can still reach 0 HP after, as called out by regular death.
Death
Source Core Rulebook pg. 460 4.0
After you die, you can’t act or regain actions or be affected by spells that target creatures (unless they specifically target dead creatures), and for all other purposes you are an object. When you die, you are reduced to 0 Hit Points if you had a different amount, and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead. Some magic can bring creatures back to life, such as the resurrect ritual or the raise dead spell.
In the interests of fair and balanced commentary, I only see two problems. First, this part of Death effects:
If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.
While it is in a paragraph about Death effects it might be read to apply universally. This seems silly but I might be expecting too much out of the title header of each section. Second, and most importantly: why would your GM allow this? It is called Final Sacrifice, not second to last sacrifice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it RAW? Maybe. Perhaps even probably.
Is it going to be allowed at most tables. Almost certainly not.
It isn't balanced to allow double-stacking damage abilities like that. It doesn't make any narrative sense to have the companion explode twice.
Probably will be reviewed when and if someday the archetype was moved to a rule/scenario book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-snip-
Um, yes it does. It says in the spell description that the target is immediately slain. Here's what the rules say about that:
If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.
So no Dying 4 and no 0 HP. You're just dead. That's it.
Also, the entire clause there is titled Death Effects and Instant Death, not just Death Effects, meaning it covers both concepts. Favoring the one because it comes first in the entry doesn't really track if it involves rules that it doesn't govern.
If anything, the "HP" clause in the Death rules make no sense, because once you are dead, you cease to be a creature and instead become an object (AKA corpse), meaning your "HP" is adjusted to be that of the durability and hardness of a corpse of your size, which probably isn't much, but also isn't 0 either. Either way, tracking HP of a corpse or defaulting it to 0 makes no sense, especially if it's, say, used to raise undead, which means it just never becomes undead since it remains at 0 HP and is forcibly destroyed by general undead rules. These all fall under the Too Bad to Be True clause, which means that odds are, the concept of "You're at 0 HP as a corpse" is simply false.
Just as well, you're ignoring the TGTBT clause, where a party can "wombo-combo" this regardless of whether the abilities were meant to be balanced around this being possible, which I can assure you, it probably isn't.
If anything, the "HP" clause in the Death rules make no sense, because once you are dead, you cease to be a creature and instead become an object (AKA corpse), meaning your "HP" is adjusted to be that of the durability and hardness of a corpse of your size, which probably isn't much, but also isn't 0 either. Either way, tracking HP of a corpse or defaulting it to 0 makes no sense, especially if it's, say, used to raise undead, which means it just never becomes undead since it remains at 0 HP and is forcibly destroyed by general undead rules. These all fall under the Too Bad to Be True clause, which means that odds are, the concept of "You're at 0 HP as a corpse" is simply false.
Your talent for creative writing is impressive. I am not sure why you felt it was necessary to quote rules at me that I had already cited from a valid source. I assure you, I read them.
When you die you are reduced to 0 HP. This is a pretty clear rule and is an on topic discussion for this forum. I am not familiar with the "Too Bad To Be True clause" can you cite a source for that? Your example of creating an undead, while very entertaining, seems out of place here. An undead is not dead, it is undead. Exactly what it says on the tin, if you will. The actual rules as published by Paizo plainly state "and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead." so I really have no idea why you think that prohibits Create Undead.
Just as well, you're ignoring the TGTBT clause, where a party can "wombo-combo" this regardless of whether the abilities were meant to be balanced around this being possible, which I can assure you, it probably isn't.As for this tasteful parting shot, may I direct your attention here?
In the interests of fair and balanced commentary, I only see two problems. First, this part of Death effects:
Nethys wrote:If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.
While it is in a paragraph about Death effects it might be read to apply universally. This seems silly but I might be expecting too much out of the title header of each section. Second, and most importantly: why would your GM allow this? It is called Final Sacrifice, not second to last sacrifice.
Not certain what this "TGTBT clause" is or what it has to do with a rules discussion, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that we are in agreement. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not familiar with the "Too Bad To Be True clause" can you cite a source for that?
Too Bad to be True and Too Good to be True are the nicknames for the Ambiguous Rules rule.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, the "HP" clause in the Death rules make no sense, because once you are dead, you cease to be a creature and instead become an object (AKA corpse), meaning your "HP" is adjusted to be that of the durability and hardness of a corpse of your size, which probably isn't much, but also isn't 0 either. Either way, tracking HP of a corpse or defaulting it to 0 makes no sense, especially if it's, say, used to raise undead, which means it just never becomes undead since it remains at 0 HP and is forcibly destroyed by general undead rules. These all fall under the Too Bad to Be True clause, which means that odds are, the concept of "You're at 0 HP as a corpse" is simply false.Your talent for creative writing is impressive. I am not sure why you felt it was necessary to quote rules at me that I had already cited from a valid source. I assure you, I read them.
When you die you are reduced to 0 HP. This is a pretty clear rule and is an on topic discussion for this forum. I am not familiar with the "Too Bad To Be True clause" can you cite a source for that? Your example of creating an undead, while very entertaining, seems out of place here. An undead is not dead, it is undead. Exactly what it says on the tin, if you will. The actual rules as published by Paizo plainly state "and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead." so I really have no idea why you think that prohibits Create Undead.
Just as well, you're ignoring the TGTBT clause, where a party can "wombo-combo" this regardless of whether the abilities were meant to be balanced around this being possible, which I can assure you, it probably isn't.As for this tasteful parting shot, may I direct your attention here?...In the interests of fair and balanced commentary, I only see two problems. First, this part of Death effects:
Nethys wrote:If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to
If you read them, then I am confused as to how you come to the conclusion that by RAW, the effects would double-tap, when by RAW, it shouldn't, because instant death (especially one not from a death effect) bypasses the HP and Dying rules, meaning the trigger should never take place if the creature never reaches that HP threshold. You are arguing it does by RAW, so it should trigger by RAW, when I am saying by RAW it does not and cannot.
The "Too Bad to Be True" is basically the inverse of "Too Good to Be True;" that is, Paizo wouldn't purposefully print useless/improper rules that either don't make sense or are superfluous in the grand scheme of the game. This isn't to say that they won't print niche rules (such as Armor Assist), but that the rules should at least accomplish something. In this case, causing a corpse to have 0 HP doesn't work because then the body is destroyed by nature of it being an object, therefore effects which require a body (such as Raise Dead) don't work, because in short, there is no longer a dead creature present by nature of the body of said creature being destroyed. This isn't like your typical PG-13 RPG game where enemies phase out or turn to dust when you defeat them, and drop lootables/coins/gold bars/whatever.
The "Too Good to Be True" rule is already referenced above. In short, being able to "double tap" effects in an attempt to circumvent an obvious limitation put forth by the rules (such as purposefully triggering a feature that requires a specific circumstance to arise and consequently circumventing or bending the rules to meet those circumstances) falls under that clause.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "without being reduced to 0 hit points" is pretty unambiguous language that you aren't reduced to 0 hit points, because that's literally what the rule says.
No combo.
I feel like "without being reduced to 0 hit points" is pretty unambiguous language that you aren't reduced to 0 hit points, because that's literally what the rule says.
"When you die you are reduced to 0 HP", is also unambiguous. Is there a clear precedent for how the General/Specific rule applies here? It looks like two general rules are being read in such a way that they are in conflict.
Am I to assume that some or most of you interpret this to mean that dead guy over there still has 37 hp? This is starting to get into Rules As Intended territory where I prefer Rules As Written but here we go. The process for death and dying was established to move through a general sequence: positive hp, take damage, zero hp, dying one through four, death. There are some checks to make and such but the general sequence is there. Then we get Death effects. I hope we can agree that the intent of Death effects is to skip a few steps and proceed directly to death. Ordinarily, being in possession of positive hp staves off death. The hp must first be removed before death becomes a possibility. Thus it was necessary for Death effects to clarify that they bypass the zero hp prerequisite. I do not think "when you die you are reduced to 0 HP" conflicts with "If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points". It is clarifying that two steps on the road to death have been skipped over. Assuming that the dead guy over there still has 37 hp because he failed some saves on a Death effect directly conflicts with "When you die, you are reduced to 0 Hit Points if you had a different amount, and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead". The game does not appear to allow a dead character to have nonzero hp, but it does allow you to die even if you still have positive hp. How do we reconcile this without setting the hp of the dead to zero right after they die?
To clarify, I do find it highly suspicious that Final Sacrifice and Self-Destruct stack. However, the structure of an argument must be sound. The actual rules interactions for this event are interesting.
In this case, causing a corpse to have 0 HP doesn't work because then the body is destroyed by nature of it being an object, therefore effects which require a body (such as Raise Dead) don't work, because in short, there is no longer a dead creature present by nature of the body of said creature being destroyed.
Where are you coming up with this? It is blatantly at odds with how the game works. Characters have hp. Objects have hp. A dead character may leave behind a corpse and that corpse is an object. They are not the same thing. The hp of the character does not represent the hp to destroy the object. Do adventurers dematerialize when they reach zero hp? Why do you think a corpse would vanish? Most objects do not behave that way either. If I smash a table until it has zero hp it gets broken and/or destroyed but it still exists. Zero hp does not inherently make things disappear. This whole Raise Dead example you bring up is confusing. Can you cite any rules to clarify this?
You instead are simply dead, you don't have a hp pool at all.
Interesting idea. Do you have a source for that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"When you die you are reduced to 0 HP", is also unambiguous. Is there a clear precedent for how the General/Specific rule applies here? It looks like two general rules are being read in such a way that they are in conflict.
The rules for instant death abilities a fairly clearly more specific than the normal rules for dying. I don't see a conflict here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it say that? It says you die without HAVING TO reach 0 HP. Nowhere does it exclude it.
"without being reduced to 0 HP" is the exact wording, it's even quoted in one of your posts.
What makes you think you BECOME the corpse?
I can't even this question right now.
This isn't a game where dead creatures like humanoids or animals whisk away into dust or flash into nothingness after stabbing them with a sword like in Legend of Zelda or whatever PG-13 RPG game you want to insert as an example, so saying that a dead creature doesn't become a corpse when you kill them is absurd.
I would accept that argument for summoned creatures (since they are merely simulacra made via magical energy), probably even extraplanar creatures, just as an example, but those are expressly different both mechanically and in-lore; stabbing a regular human in the face with a regular sword and not expecting them to be dead and consequently turn into a corpse is absurd even for this game where fire-breathing dragons and magic and divine power are an expected norm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You gotta love when people try to stretch RAW beyond the clear intention in a system that actually tells the GM to apply common sense over unintended interactions.
What makes you think you BECOME the corpse?I can't even this question right now.
This isn't a game where dead creatures like humanoids or animals whisk away into dust or flash into nothingness after stabbing them with a sword like in Legend of Zelda or whatever PG-13 RPG game you want to insert as an example, so saying that a dead creature doesn't become a corpse when you kill them is absurd.
I would accept that argument for summoned creatures (since they are merely simulacra made via magical energy), probably even extraplanar creatures, just as an example, but those are expressly different both mechanically and in-lore; stabbing a regular human in the face with a regular sword and not expecting them to be dead and consequently turn into a corpse is absurd even for this game where fire-breathing dragons and magic and divine power are an expected norm.
I didn't say that you don't leave a corpse. But you definitely do not become an object. How you missed that is beyond me to be honest.
IF you become an object as you claim, then tell me how Resurrect would work on you RAW? Since it only targets dead creatures.
I didn't miss it, because your argument is basically saying what I expressed prior. And it's simple transitive property rules. Creature becomes corpse, a corpse is an object, therefore, creature becomes object. It's the same logic behind petrification, and it's not much different besides the whole "turn to stone" thing, but that has its own specifics there.
Consequently, dead creature is just a specific type of object. Resurrect wouldn't work if you targeted a mug or a plate because it's not a dead creature, but it would work if you targeted a corpse (or even as you say, a steak, since a steak is just a part of a creature's corpse).
Point is, bringing up the whole "0 HP" thing as a means to cheese a specific rules system doesn't work with the premise that objects have HP too, and if a dead creature (which is an object) defaults to 0 HP, then it defaults to being a destroyed object, which just doesn't make sense as a blanket statement given that not all corpses of dead creatures are destroyed objects. If the idea is that the corpse is an object, which has HP, plus a break threshold equal to half of the maximum HP, then it can't just default to 0 HP and trigger effects which require 0 HP.
That makes a bit of sense. But then why would the death state state that you are reduced to 0 HP, when you then instantly turn into a corpse object with >0 HP. That feels weird to me.
I am not saying this wouldn't be cheesy or OP or that it should be allowed, I am talking strictly RAW.
"When you die, you are reduced to 0 Hit Points if you had a different amount, and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead"
You die with more than 0 HP "You don't get reduced to 0 HP", and then the death state reduces you to 0 HP. That's separate from eachother.
Instantly slain
Dies -> Reduced to 0 HP
Becomes a corpse with X HP
The only thing I can assume is the case is that it is referring to your HP as a creature, not as your HP as an object, and that it is at best a general rule.
The Petrified condition states that as an object, your current HP reflects your object HP, and that when it hits 0, you're considered destroyed (AKA dead). This serves as a specific case where creature HP and object HP are synonymous with themselves, whereas otherwise it is not, and it also serves to demonstrate that objects don't follow the Dying rules.
But the instant death rules (regardless of Death trait being present or not) do state that you bypass the 0 HP/Dying rules and instantly receive the Dead condition, so it's specific trumps general, regardless of what this general rule is telling us.
But the instant death rules (regardless of Death trait being present or not) do state that you bypass the 0 HP/Dying rules and instantly receive the Dead condition, so it's specific trumps general, regardless of what this general rule is telling us.
The specific rules for Death Effects and Instant Death almost certainly overwrite the general rules for dying. There is nothing to suggest they overwrite the general rules for being dead. The moment of death and all the time after spent dead are not the same thing.
I really do not understand your fixation with becoming a destroyed corpse. If someone takes a bunch of damage they can reach 0 hp. If someone fails their dying checks they can become dead. The possibility of a character having 0 hp and being dead is fully supported by the rules. Why would this lead you to believe corpses get destroyed automatically? This is plainly not how the game works. If you must entertain the possibility of desecrating a corpse, then accept that no rule states that the hp of a corpse as an object must equal the hp of the character. It is easy enough to find examples where someone died without destroying their body, or where a part of a body was destroyed without that person dying. Your petrification example provides specific rules that cannot be assumed to apply to other situations.
Yes.
The source has been linked a dozen times already.
YOU DIE WITHOUT BEING REDUCED TO 0.
So, you have no hp at all.
This seems like an enormous leap of inductive logic. There is no prior basis for not having hp at all. This contradicts very clear rules. An exception of this magnitude would need to explicitly lay out alternative rules for how to handle the bizarre case of replacing HP with "error 404" or a null state, if you prefer.
This part is more interesting.now, the specific ruling of instant death effects says that you are not being reduced to 0, this particular phrase has a single effect: it prevents triggers that would activate when you get to 0.
I will say the intent is not as clear as you are presenting it to be. If that line had a single effect, I would say it is specifying a target can reach death without first taking enough damage to reach 0 hp. Ordinarily, possessing positive hp staves off death. But that line might have two or more effects. It might be sufficient to rule that effects that trigger on 0 hp are not triggered. I do not think there is anywhere near enough evidence to claim that it allows dead characters to have hp greater than zero or that it replaces hp with a null value.
Yes, that seems to be the interpretation that supports all of the relevant rules.
But the instant death rules (regardless of Death trait being present or not) do state that you bypass the 0 HP/Dying rules and instantly receive the Dead condition, so it's specific trumps general, regardless of what this general rule is telling us.The specific rules for Death Effects and Instant Death almost certainly overwrite the general rules for dying. There is nothing to suggest they overwrite the general rules for being dead. The moment of death and all the time after spent dead are not the same thing.
I really do not understand your fixation with becoming a destroyed corpse. If someone takes a bunch of damage they can reach 0 hp. If someone fails their dying checks they can become dead. The possibility of a character having 0 hp and being dead is fully supported by the rules. Why would this lead you to believe corpses get destroyed automatically? This is plainly not how the game works. If you must entertain the possibility of desecrating a corpse, then accept that no rule states that the hp of a corpse as an object must equal the hp of the character. It is easy enough to find examples where someone died without destroying their body, or where a part of a body was destroyed without that person dying. Your petrification example provides specific rules that cannot be assumed to apply to other situations.
You keep referencing the rule of "dead creatures have 0 HP," and they are objects. Objects with 0 HP are considered destroyed. Transitive property says your interpretation makes corpses automatically destroyed, which makes no sense if the idea is that you need an intact (AKA not destroyed) corpse to raise it into Undead.
You keep referencing the rule of "dead creatures have 0 HP," and they are objects. Objects with 0 HP are considered destroyed. Transitive property says your interpretation makes corpses automatically destroyed, which makes no sense if the idea is that you need an intact (AKA not destroyed) corpse to raise it into Undead.
Yes, I do keep referencing rules. This is the Rules Discussion forum, Homebrew and House Rules can be found here. Can you provide a citation that supports your entertaining idea about corpses destroying themselves? I think we both agree that is not the intent of the system.
So, obviously, the RAW is wrong.
May I presume you know which ones are obviously wrong and which can be trusted?
You keep referencing the rule of "dead creatures have 0 HP," and they are objects. Objects with 0 HP are considered destroyed. Transitive property says your interpretation makes corpses automatically destroyed, which makes no sense if the idea is that you need an intact (AKA not destroyed) corpse to raise it into Undead.Yes, I do keep referencing rules. This is the Rules Discussion forum, Homebrew and House Rules can be found here. Can you provide a citation that supports your entertaining idea about corpses destroying themselves? I think we both agree that is not the intent of the system.
You already provided the citations. Asking me to provide your own citations is just you being lazy.