My PFS party fought a morrowkin yestersay, and we noticed that the crit fail effect of Swallow Future inflicts doomed 4. The effect even mentions that this is likely to cause an instant kill.
Fortunately, it's not a death effect, so it's susceptible to Breath of Life. How does this work? Does the creature now have doomed 4 and will die if it increases or they gain the dying condition?
Well the easy way (and looks RAW) - you get doomed 4, you "instantly die. When you die, you’re no longer doomed" - you don't die because of the spell. And doomed already went away.
This certainly is a conundrum in what applies first.
A, Does Breath of Life's text about preventing death mean you dont die in the first place? But if thats the case then you are still doomed and still die.
B, If the text about reviving at the moment of death is the intention then obviously you have died and doomed is no longer present, so you continue to live.
I personally would rule with the former due to the reaction stating "Would die" as a trigger instead of "a creature dies" but in my eyes the spell doesn't make the distinction between if it is a prevention or instant revival.
Errenor wrote: Well the easy way (and looks RAW) - you get doomed 4, you "instantly die. When you die, you’re no longer doomed" - you don't die because of the spell. And doomed already went away. Well, if you didn't die because of the Breath of Life spell, then you don't lose Doomed 4 either. Because, as quoted, "When you die, you're no longer doomed". You don't lose Doomed 4 due to a trigger that hasn't happened.
So this is going to need a table ruling.
It is a bit of a troll ruling to say that the spell can be cast and restores the 5d8 +1d8/heightened Hit Points, but the target still dies from having Doomed 4.
Either disallow the spell entirely in this scenario and be up front about it, or houserule that the Breath of Life spell also removes or reduces the Doomed condition.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It absolutely is a troll ruling if one were to go with that.
I personally feel like the instant death from doomed 4 should be considered a death effect. It ticks all the boxes for the behavior expected from a death effect.
*Instantly slain without reaching 0hp.
*Closely related to Void or loss of Lifeforce
*Doesn't care about putting you into the dying condition.
As a houserule, and because it lacks the Death trait, I would ask for a counteract check.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would probably either rule that either the Marrowkin's ability should have the death trait, or that Breath of Life functioned by "letting you die" and then "resurrecting" you. Resulting in a clearing of the doomed condition.
However, I'm not sure which is more correct.
And the idea that a reasonable interpretation would be that you could somehow use Breath of Life and that it wouldn't clear the doomed condition and thus the character would still die is a clearly non-sensical answer. If you want that to be the outcome, simply rule it's a death effect.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It certainly isn't the only place in the rules that I know of where strict RAW is a troll ruling, either.
Another edge case worth mentioning would be Curse of Death.
If an ally is affected by Curse of Death cast by an enemy and falls to 0 HP due to the Void damage from, say, stage 2, then they would die via the normal means of dropping to 0 HP.
However, Breath of Life would not be usable in this scenario because the entire Curse of Death spell has the Death trait on it, not just the instant death effect of stage 4.
But... If the character only gets severely injured due to the Void damage from Curse of Death and then gets hit by an enemy and the damage from that causes them to drop to 0 HP, then Breath of Life would be usable and would do the full amount of healing.
Finoan wrote: So this is going to need a table ruling. Well, yes. But it is a forced one, and kind of normal part of the game: yes, sometimes order of things in reactions IS tricky. But in this case you and other people here already wrote what happens if we don't choose this solution. Or add death trait, yes, but I see this as much stronger 'homerule'.
Also I don't see why Curse of Death is an edge case. Yes, you described everything correctly, it seems. What's edgy about it though? O_o
Errenor wrote: What's edgy about it though? O_o The outcome is not necessarily what players may be expecting. It is typical for Death effects to cause death instantly without dealing damage, so those types of effects intuitively make sense to not work with Breath of Life. Dealing damage that happens to also have the Death trait is not as intuitive. I could also see tables deciding to houserule that the Death trait of Curse of Death only applies to the 'stage 4: you die' effect, which is why a case like this is worth mentioning in this thread.
Though the death trait do specify that it applies when the effects damage reduces you to 0hp. While instant kill is more of a secondary definition of what Death Effects are. Can some people ignore/forget what is written in the trait... well yeah sometimes.
Though. It really does seem like doomed 4 was meant to be a death effect but they didnt include it in the text. Because Breath of Life is not the only thing that has a weird behavior with Doomed as written.
Finoan wrote: Errenor wrote: What's edgy about it though? O_o The outcome is not necessarily what players may be expecting. It is typical for Death effects to cause death instantly without dealing damage, so those types of effects intuitively make sense to not work with Breath of Life. Dealing damage that happens to also have the Death trait is not as intuitive. I could also see tables deciding to houserule that the Death trait of Curse of Death only applies to the 'stage 4: you die' effect, which is why a case like this is worth mentioning in this thread. But... one of the most frequent (and iconic I would say) death spells is Vampiric Feast/Touch in pf2. And it's almost the only thing it does - deals damage with death trait, but no instant kills generally.
I skimmed through death spells and from 23 of them at least 8 mostly just deal damage (and some of them only deal damage).
Also found that Reaper’s Lantern is not only bad, but also broken: it has death trait which does nothing at all (the spell deals no damage and has no killing effects) but making all undead immune to it (as undead are immune to death effects).
Errenor wrote: Also found that Reaper’s Lantern is not only bad, but also broken: it has death trait which does nothing at all (the spell deals no damage and has no killing effects) but making all undead immune to it (as undead are immune to death effects). Thats actually not the case, The reduced healing that the living suffers is a death effect, The enfeeblement of undead is not.
Full rule for immunity covers this.
immunity wrote: If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. Often, an effect both has a trait and deals that type of damage (such as a lightning bolt spell). In these cases, the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire. But yeah.. most death effects are just "Deal void damage and ignore dying if reduced to 0hp" or "if the target critically fails they die"
NorrKnekten wrote: Errenor wrote: Also found that Reaper’s Lantern is not only bad, but also broken: it has death trait which does nothing at all (the spell deals no damage and has no killing effects) but making all undead immune to it (as undead are immune to death effects). Thats actually not the case, The reduced healing that the living suffers is a death effect, The enfeeblement of undead is not. Firstly, it isn't written. So we presumably need to (un)assign the trait ourselves. But ok, let's assume you are correct. So... What exactly does the part of the trait that 'works' on living?
Yes, the best case scenario is we have the trait which isn't applied at all and does nothing and... does nothing.
Not written but it is implied isnt it, Or else the spell wouldnt work against undead since they are all supposed to be immune to death effects. But it still says that it works against undead.
There are living that are immune to Death Effects
most notably, Spirits, Deamons and fiends, Psycopomps and monitors.
So they obviously cannot suffer the reduced healing.
NorrKnekten wrote: Not written but it is implied isnt it, Or else the spell wouldnt work against undead since they are all supposed to be immune to death effects. But it still says that it works against undead.
There are living that are immune to Death Effects
most notably, Spirits, Deamons and fiends, Psycopomps and monitors.
So they obviously cannot suffer the reduced healing.
By your logic you must NOT use the trait with creatures immune to the trait already. You did this with undead, why are other creatures immune to the trait better? :D I remind you that the spell says it works against living too!
So, trait isn't applied to the effect for them and they DO suffer reduced healing. Trait does nothing again. :)
Errenor wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Not written but it is implied isnt it, Or else the spell wouldnt work against undead since they are all supposed to be immune to death effects. But it still says that it works against undead.
There are living that are immune to Death Effects
most notably, Spirits, Deamons and fiends, Psycopomps and monitors.
So they obviously cannot suffer the reduced healing.
By your logic you must NOT apply the trait to creatures immune to the trait already. You did this with undead, why are other creatures immune to the trait better? :D Ok dude, whatever you say.
But that doesn't change the fact that there are two parts to the spell,
Vs Undead
Vs Living
One of these parts cannot exist underneath the written rules if the death trait is part of it. You have to assume the trait isnt part of this effect.
The other part one can exists and function as normally.
Atleast one part must have the trait for the entire spell to gain it.
Breath of Life does indeed stay that it prevents death, though the lore text says it revives at the moment of death instead. And there is a stat block that seems to have been written with the lore text in mind, complicating matters further.
Unrisen wrote: Resurrection Vulnerability A creature with a prepared or spontaneous spell that can restore the dead to life (such as breath of life or raise dead) can expend an appropriate spell slot as a 2-action activity to destroy an unrisen within 30 feet. The attempt fails if the unrisen succeeds at a Will save against the creature's spell DC.
SuperParkourio wrote: Breath of Life does indeed stay that it prevents death, though the lore text says it revives at the moment of death instead. And there is a stat block that seems to have been written with the lore text in mind, complicating matters further.
Unrisen wrote: Resurrection Vulnerability A creature with a prepared or spontaneous spell that can restore the dead to life (such as breath of life or raise dead) can expend an appropriate spell slot as a 2-action activity to destroy an unrisen within 30 feet. The attempt fails if the unrisen succeeds at a Will save against the creature's spell DC.
Yeah Its certainly is one of those ambigious rules that could be taken multiple ways. Its description not helping the matter. I suspect this is one of those places where Paizo expects table variation even.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Breath of Life vs Swallow Future is a very unfortunate place to have table variation. My party was level 11 (except me, who was level 10), so this was a PL+3 boss. And the DC for Swallow Future is 39 (extreme for level 14), so we were looking at a 40-50% chance of a critical failure. Even if breath of life works against it, 2 or 3 party members could easily lose this coin toss and die simultaneously. It also doesn't help that the monster's Strikes can inflict misfortune on all checks for 1 minute.
Yeaaa, Though that creature is written with the idea that you most likely have a trinked called a hope-talisman right?
It basically nullifies alot of the nastiest abilities and you can break it to ignore Swallow Future with Swallow Future being a once per minute thing.
I agree that the creature is absolutely terrifying but I think the table variation part stems from Doomed and Breath of Life in general, Especially with Breaths language conflicting in if its prevention or ressurection.
NorrKnekten wrote: Yeaaa, Though that creature is written with the idea that you most likely have a trinked called a hope-talisman right? What even is a hope talisman? There is no mention of a hope talisman anywhere in the game outside of this stat block, and there is no talisman in the game that features the word "hope" anywhere in its text.
SuperParkourio wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Yeaaa, Though that creature is written with the idea that you most likely have a trinked called a hope-talisman right? What even is a hope talisman? There is no mention of a hope talisman anywhere in the game outside of this stat block, and there is no talisman in the game that features the word "hope" anywhere in its text. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Its abilities certainly do seem like the talisman is a neccesity and I cant see it in Dark Archive either.
NorrKnekten wrote: One of these parts cannot exist underneath the written rules if the death trait is part of it. You have to assume the trait isnt part of this effect.
The other part one can exists and function as normally.
I assume the actual correct thing: this trait is broken on this spell and must be removed because it's an error. I'm not trying to invent farfetched reasons why it makes sense when it doesn't make sense for the spell at all and doesn't do anything.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The spell would not work RAW, since you would still be on Doomed 4.
but as a gm i would advice about that let them change they mind on casting that spell in that case.
Breath of life are not ment as a catch all save spell, since death effects and "leaves no remains" still pierces it, so not that out of this world if doomed 4 also do that.
thera are other spells you can use that work after death instead, like Shock to the System.
Congrats. You're alive, but have no future.
A rift in time swallows you up and I feed you to my nest!
You're neither alive nor dead. Guess you're undead now.
Choose a dedication from the BotD.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
A simple idea to fix this problem is to create a Greater Breath of Life
spell that is two levels higher that says that the spell heals 5d8 +1d8/heightened Hit Points and removes the Dying and Doomed Conditions.
It is exceedingly difficult for Pazio when they have many contributors and tight
production windows to get everything correct in the first path and errata
releases tend to get pushed back because rules team members move on to pursue other work. So if you are running a home game, I suggest the GM
and players sit down and talk it out and house rule to correct these problems.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My reading goes like this:
The trigger on Breath of Life is "a living creature within range would die." The text further says that you "prevent the target from dying." Both of these strongly imply the target never dies when the spell is used. I personally think it makes the most sense to think of the spell as being put "on the stack," ala MtG, in response to an implicit step where the game checks if you're dead after you take damage or suffer effects like doomed 4. The spell then resolves before the game checks if you're dead, and well, you're hopefully not dead after someone uses Breath of Life.
As the doomed condition implies, you die at doomed 4 (unless you have diehard, etc.), and doomed is cleared on death.
So, as others have said... this means Breath of Life just does nothing. The target of Breath of Life never dies, so doomed is never cleared. They just heal some damage and die anyways after Breath of Life resolves.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NorrKnekten wrote: SuperParkourio wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Yeaaa, Though that creature is written with the idea that you most likely have a trinked called a hope-talisman right? What even is a hope talisman? There is no mention of a hope talisman anywhere in the game outside of this stat block, and there is no talisman in the game that features the word "hope" anywhere in its text. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Its abilities certainly do seem like the talisman is a neccesity and I cant see it in Dark Archive either. Hope talismans are a plot device in the adventure that creature appears in, they're not a mechanical item. As such they don't appear on AoN since it doesn't include adventure content beyond creatures.
Beyond creatures and other mechanical elements like actual gear, hazards and so on yeah. Just using the Fulcrum Lattice and lenses as an example from AV as those appear on AoN.
I was guessing that was the case that it litterary is just a namesake of sorts with no other impact.
Perses13 wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: SuperParkourio wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Yeaaa, Though that creature is written with the idea that you most likely have a trinked called a hope-talisman right? What even is a hope talisman? There is no mention of a hope talisman anywhere in the game outside of this stat block, and there is no talisman in the game that features the word "hope" anywhere in its text. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Its abilities certainly do seem like the talisman is a neccesity and I cant see it in Dark Archive either. Hope talismans are a plot device in the adventure that creature appears in, they're not a mechanical item. As such they don't appear on AoN since it doesn't include adventure content beyond creatures.
Yep. This creature is an unkillable plot monster from a Dark Archive mini-adventure.
Nelzy wrote: The spell would not work RAW, since you would still be on Doomed 4.
but as a gm i would advice about that let them change they mind on casting that spell in that case.
Breath of life are not ment as a catch all save spell, since death effects and "leaves no remains" still pierces it, so not that out of this world if doomed 4 also do that.
thera are other spells you can use that work after death instead, like Shock to the System.
Would that work in this case?
The spell says "If the target is a corpse that died within the last round, the creature comes back to life with 0 Hit Points, and any effects and conditions it had when it died, with the exception of dying, and its wounded condition increases by 1."
So if it has doomed 4 when it died, wouldn't it still have it again?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Doomed says it clears when the target dies. So yeah, Shock to the System works.
Doomed wrote: Your life is ebbing away, bringing you ever closer to death. Some powerful spells and evil creatures can inflict the doomed condition on you. Doomed always includes a value. The maximum dying value at which you die is reduced by your doomed value. For example, if you were doomed 1, you would die upon reaching dying 3 instead of dying 4. If your maximum dying value is ever reduced to 0, you instantly die. When you die, you’re no longer doomed.
Your doomed value decreases by 1 each time you get a full night’s rest.
Ectar wrote: Nelzy wrote: The spell would not work RAW, since you would still be on Doomed 4.
but as a gm i would advice about that let them change they mind on casting that spell in that case.
Breath of life are not ment as a catch all save spell, since death effects and "leaves no remains" still pierces it, so not that out of this world if doomed 4 also do that.
thera are other spells you can use that work after death instead, like Shock to the System.
Would that work in this case?
The spell says "If the target is a corpse that died within the last round, the creature comes back to life with 0 Hit Points, and any effects and conditions it had when it died, with the exception of dying, and its wounded condition increases by 1."
So if it has doomed 4 when it died, wouldn't it still have it again? Yeah that spell is explicit in that it revives after the death, I also assume that durations on effects progress as normal while you are dead (or atleast that being the intention for shock in the system.) Doomed's duration is that it ends when it reaches 0 or you die. Whichever comes first.
So yeah.. you wouldn't have it from how I read it.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
