Inevitable return

[Oni Shogun]

Does it work on the "corpse" of a undead or construct? I was told undead and constructs don't really die? The wording in the book just says it has to be a small or medium sized creature. Is there any official word on this?

[NorrKnekten]

I believe so, but I can also see the argument that undeads do not die per say but are destroyed instead.

The only thing that is for sure is that they do not leave
'usable' corpses but Inevitable Return do not care about that from what I can see.

Expect table variation depending on how the GM reads the dying rules as currently I see both following readings as viable.

"When an undead/construct reaches 0 hp, they die and are destroyed"
"When an undead/construct reaches 0 hp, they do not die but are destroyed instead"

[Lightning Sentinel]

Most constructs also don't have souls, which is the measure for if they're affected by abilities related to life or death. The "living constructs" though is much less ambiguous.

[Oni Shogun]

NorrKnekten wrote:

I believe so, but I can also see the argument that undeads do not die per say but are destroyed instead.

The only thing that is for sure is that they do not leave
'usable' corpses but Inevitable Return do not care about that from what I can see.

Expect table variation depending on how the GM reads the dying rules as currently I see both following readings as viable.

"When an undead/construct reaches 0 hp, they die and are destroyed"
"When an undead/construct reaches 0 hp, they do not die but are destroyed instead"

There is no table variation in PFS. or there isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to be rules as written. I mean they can make a decision in the moment but they can't rewrite rules.

[Oni Shogun]

Lightning Sentinel wrote:

Most constructs also don't have souls, which is the measure for if they're affected by abilities related to life or death. The "living constructs" though is much less ambiguous.

The trigger however doesn't say it has to be living. There is a trigger ability out there that says it must be a living creature. Inevitable return doesn't say this so its confusing. It probably doesn't affect constructs or undead, BUT I'd like a official ruling by Paizo in a errata or something to be sure. Until then I'll just go with it doesn't.

[Lightning Sentinel]

The animating force of constructs isn't of life or undeath, hence why they're usually immune to both and spirit. They're for all purposes objects in most cases.

I'm assuming that this is from Impossible Magic spell, so I can't read it myself and check the traits and am going by other resurrection abilities.

[NorrKnekten]

Oni Shogun wrote:

There is no table variation in PFS. or there isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to be rules as written. I mean they can make a decision in the moment but they can't rewrite rules.

And thats the issue, the base rule is ambigious on that part. Granted one can use common sense and consider that things that arent alive also don't die, but for undead its more murky.

They can absolutely make rules calls for Vague rules, but how its worked with similar rule elements so far is that the trigger or effect clarifies exactly what kind of creature it targets.

example: "Trigger A living creature within 20 feet of you dies, or an undead creature within 20 feet of you is destroyed"

[The Raven Black]

There is definitely table variation in PFS.

[Oni Shogun]

The Raven Black wrote:

There is definitely table variation in PFS.

There isn't supposed to be though looking at the org rules. You can't for example have "house rules" in PFS. It's supposed to be rules as written for the most part? You can make a rules call in the moment but you can't have like your own little rules that you use every time that aren't official.

[Finoan]

GMs still have to make a ruling on ambiguous rules.

There are also places in the rules where the rules deliberately leave things to GM discretion.

[Unicore]

I assume Inevitable Return is something from Impossible Magic? I don’t think PFS will have a ruling about it until after the book is formally published, nor will anyone who hasn’t received a pre-release copy. That is why I do not have any response yet. It is probably too soon to have much of a read yet on how the larger playing community will interpret the ability.

[TheFinish]

Unicore wrote:

I assume Inevitable Return is something from Impossible Magic? I don’t think PFS will have a ruling about it until after the book is formally published, nor will anyone who hasn’t received a pre-release copy. That is why I do not have any response yet. It is probably too soon to have much of a read yet on how the larger playing community will interpret the ability.

It's a reaction all Necromancers get at 3rd level that allows them to make a Thrall when "a Small or Medium enemy dies within 30 feet".

So the question is "does this work if the enenmy is an Undead/Construct"? (note that this doesn't work on a Necromancer's own Thralls no matter what because they aren't enemies).

[BotBrain]

From the description TheFinish gave the intent seems pretty clear to me that it's supposed to apply when something is reduced to 0HP and "die" was used as a shorthand. Nerfing necromancers when they're fighting their entire deal seems unintentional.

[Oni Shogun]

BotBrain wrote:

From the description TheFinish gave the intent seems pretty clear to me that it's supposed to apply when something is reduced to 0HP and "die" was used as a shorthand. Nerfing necromancers when they're fighting their entire deal seems unintentional.

Its not clear though and my PFS group is saying that it's clear it does not apply to undead or constructs and I'm not sure myself. There are grave spells though that do allow you to create a thrall or bring back the previously destroyed undead under your control but without any special abilities and some other nerfs to it.

[BotBrain]

Those sound like restrictions to what you can do with the undead you summon, not forbidding you from using an ability on the undead, especially since that's a feat and not a core ability, which tend to be far less restrictive.

[Finoan]

BotBrain wrote:

From the description TheFinish gave the intent seems pretty clear to me that it's supposed to apply when something is reduced to 0HP and "die" was used as a shorthand. Nerfing necromancers when they're fighting their entire deal seems unintentional.

Also going off the description from TheFinish, the other exploit I can see GMs using is: Well, now nothing dies immediately when they drop to 0 HP. I'm invoking the discretion that the game rules explicitly give the GM to make it so that every creature - every boss, every mook - goes through the Dying process and makes death saves each round.

So now it takes 2-4 rounds or more before the Necromancer can use a core class feature. Unless the party wants to spend actions stabbing downed enemies.

-----

As for PFS, they will have to make a ruling for PFS play on the matter. Both on when creatures die according to how the class feature counts it, and for whether undead or construct enemies 'die'.

[TheFinish]

BotBrain wrote:

From the description TheFinish gave the intent seems pretty clear to me that it's supposed to apply when something is reduced to 0HP and "die" was used as a shorthand. Nerfing necromancers when they're fighting their entire deal seems unintentional.

I don't think the intent is for it to apply when stuff hits 0 HP because the reaction specifically says you create a thrall in the triggering corpse's space, and as Finoan points out, depending on how your GM wishes to run things, hitting 0 HP may or may not equal becoming a corpse.

It should IMO add "living" before enemy to the trigger to make things easier for players. At that point your GM can still grief you by using full dying rules for every Tom, Dick and Larry, but that's kind of a separate issue.

[BotBrain]

That is a fair point.

[Castilliano]

The default rules for NPCs is to die at 0 h.p. with those going unconscious being the (story-driven) exceptions. So if your GM is pulling the "everyone lives" counter to your basic ability, that's pure antagonism, not RAW nor RAI.

That said, we had this situation last night and it was awkward when the construct "died" and the GM had nothing to fall back on to explain to the (confused more than argumentative) player why his PC's ability didn't work (which I fully agree with).

[The Ronyon]

When a zombi is "destroyed", does it leave a corpse?
What about a skeleton, do they collapse into a pile of disconnected bones?
If so, does that count as a corpse?

[NorrKnekten]

The Ronyon wrote:

When a zombi is "destroyed", does it leave a corpse?

What about a skeleton, do they collapse into a pile of disconnected bones?
If so, does that count as a corpse?

Yes, its still a part of the creature's body, just like destroyed items still exists, they just are beyond use/repair. But since its destroyed it no longer can be used for most things, like the Raise Dead spell. (anything that requires it to be intact). Something like heightened Resurrection obviously does not.

But Inevitable Return seemingly does not care about state of the corpse at all so even if a guy is killed by Disintegrate it should work as written.

[Finoan]

Castilliano wrote:

The default rules for NPCs is to die at 0 h.p. with those going unconscious being the (story-driven) exceptions. So if your GM is pulling the "everyone lives" counter to your basic ability, that's pure antagonism, not RAW nor RAI.

Yeah, I remember saying the same thing regarding "the typical DC for aid is 15".

But that doesn't stop people from vehemently arguing that since the GM has discretion on the matter, that they can change the default expectations and not only avoid calling it a houserule, but also not inform the players about it up front, and not listen to any of their frustrations when they don't like the change.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean a Necromancer is able, to create a thrall in a square where there are no raw materials and nothing has ever died on that exact spot. So I think Inevitable Return is more about taking advantage of the metaphysical phenomenon of an animating impetus abandoning a vessel than "use their blood."

Since the feat just says "creature" it feels like you can use it even when it's pretty obvious that what you're creating has no relation to what just died (like making a bone thing out of a water elemental.)

[The Raven Black]

I expect PFS to make a ruling that it applies to all enemies, even undead and construct ones.

[shroudb]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean a Necromancer is able, to create a thrall in a square where there are no raw materials and nothing has ever died on that exact spot. So I think Inevitable Return is more about taking advantage of the metaphysical phenomenon of an animating impetus abandoning a vessel than "use their blood."

Since the feat just says "creature" it feels like you can use it even when it's pretty obvious that what you're creating has no relation to what just died (like making a bone thing out of a water elemental.)

Tbf, the ability straight up mentions the corpse.

At least the way I see it, as long as it leaves a corpse, it's ok to use it, if not then no.

So, a zombie or a golem would be fine, but a ghost or an extraplanar that de-summons wouldn't be.

At least in my tables

[Kelseus]

The trigger says "a small or medium enemy within 30 feet dies."

there is nothing in the description that states that the enemy's body is used to create the thrall. It only creates the thrall in the corpse's space. This make sense since thralls are not made from dead bodies (like zombies or skeletons) but magically created by the necromancer.

The obvious problem is that "dies" is an ambiguous term.

There is an argument that it doesn't work on undead because "When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed." (see undead trait). Same with constructs since they use nearly identical language. "Constructs are not living creatures, nor are they undead. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed."

That being said I think it would be fine to allow Inevitable Return to trigger for any corporeal enemy that is reduced to 0 hit points. (I would not allow for incorporeal enemies because they don't leave a corpse, so there is no location for the thrall to arrive.) Especially since it is 1 thrall and you can make 2 to 3 with one action every round.

[NorrKnekten]

But a ghost, haunts and incorporeal undead do leave spirital remains and remnants once destroyed and we have archetypes and features that uses that, with adventures and lorebooks that say that ghosts leave residue like ectoplasm.

Additionally see Ghost Ampule.

If a puddle of water, ooze or similar is considered a 'corpse' then surely the residue left behind by destroyed ghosts should be too.

Granted, Everything else seems to be the general concensus,

[shroudb]

NorrKnekten wrote:

But a ghost, haunts and incorporeal undead do leave spirital remains and remnants once destroyed and we have archetypes and features that uses that, with adventures and lorebooks that say that ghosts leave residue like ectoplasm.

Additionally see Ghost Ampule.

If a puddle of water, ooze or similar is considered a 'corpse' then surely the residue left behind by destroyed ghosts should be too.

Granted, Everything else seems to be the general concensus,

I wouldn't call a puddle of water a corpse. Similarly to if someone disentegrates an enemy to a pile of ash there's no corpse.

If there's no corpse, then there's no "corpse space".

[The Contrarian]

TheFinish wrote:

So the question is "does this work if the enenmy is an Undead/Construct"? (note that this doesn't work on a Necromancer's own Thralls no matter what because they aren't enemies).

The undead are everyone's enemies.

[Claxon]

My first thought is if the trigger is "when a small or medium enemy dies within 30ft" then it doesn't work on undead or constructs because they don't die at 0 HP, they are destroyed.

Is that intentional? I'm not sure.
Should it work undead and constructs? I'm not sure.
Could they clarify the wording to say "dies or is destroyed"? Probably
Will Paizo do that "soon"? Probably not.

If I were GMing for this character I would try let them know in advance they way I would rule on such a thing (that undead and constructs don't die) but I'm open to the idea that the word die was shorthand or used imprecisely, not to explicitly exclude undead or construct from triggering it.

[NorrKnekten]

shroudb wrote:

I wouldn't call a puddle of water a corpse. Similarly to if someone disentegrates an enemy to a pile of ash there's no corpse.

If there's no corpse, then there's no "corpse space".

Then you are defining 'corpse' as something other or additional to the remains of a dead creature. If there are remains there is obviously a corpse in the general/laymans context, But "corpse" changes its definition depending on context so I can see why you think that. With some such definitions then Skeletons wouldn't be a corpse but Zombies are.

But, That makes the trigger itself a bigger problem if the trigger can be fulfilled but the effect doesn't happen because of such a "gotcha" moment. Especially if one uses the means of which they died to decide that.

A creature died, Most creatures leave some kind of remains in the square they occupied, incorporeals, oozes, elementals and planar creatures included; A thrall should be created in the square occupied by the creature as long as we can agree that creature "Died" since the effect doesn't explicitly set a limit.

It should be clarified in errata, Because at the moment, Both what it means for a creature to "Die" and the definition of a 'Corpse' depends on the GMs interpretation of the words.

[shroudb]

NorrKnekten wrote:

shroudb wrote:

I wouldn't call a puddle of water a corpse. Similarly to if someone disentegrates an enemy to a pile of ash there's no corpse.

If there's no corpse, then there's no "corpse space".

Then you are defining 'corpse' as something other or additional to the remains of a dead creature. If there are remains there is obviously a corpse in the general/laymans context, But "corpse" changes its definition depending on context so I can see why you think that. With some such definitions then Skeletons wouldn't be a corpse but Zombies are.

But, That makes the trigger itself a bigger problem if the trigger can be fulfilled but the effect doesn't happen because of such a "gotcha" moment. Especially if one uses the means of which they died to decide that.

A creature died, Most creatures leave some kind of remains in the square they occupied, incorporeals, oozes, elementals and planar creatures included; A thrall should be created in the square occupied by the creature as long as we can agree that creature "Died" since the effect doesn't explicitly set a limit.

It should be clarified in errata, Because at the moment, Both what it means for a creature to "Die" and the definition of a 'Corpse' depends on the GMs interpretation of the words.

i don't think that there is a "gotcha" moment at all.

the description and the flavor of the ability is using your enemies corpses as your thralls.

Thralls, even the more spiritual ones, have physical presence and physical bodies, despite that the necro can bring forth an unmeasurable number of them (for gameplay balance) the fantasy still is you bringing forth a creature back from the dead to fight for you.

if there's no physical body left behind, then it stands to reason that you cannot bring it back.

again, not a "gotcha" moment to the slightest, just a reading of what an ability actually says it does.

---

As for table differences of how to read into the ability, I can see that. My reading is the simplest i can justify in my mind:
if it leaves behind a corporal body, you can use it. For me it doesn't matter if that body beforehand was living, dead, or a construct, just as long as it is a body that could be a thrall.

hence why i exluded just the incorporeal and the extraplanar things that simply go eithr poof or return back to "not a body" (as the water elemental example)

[PossibleCabbage]

I plan on running it where you can run the feat whenever anything (that's small or medium) is removed from the battlefield, be it a zombie or a being of pure energy.

I think selective realism is a bad idea in a game like this, and "how do you make a skeleton thing out of a water elemental" isn't far from "how do you load a crossbow that fast" to my taste.

[QuidEst]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I plan on running it where you can run the feat whenever anything (that's small or medium) is removed from the battlefield, be it a zombie or a being of pure energy.

I think selective realism is a bad idea in a game like this, and "how do you make a skeleton thing out of a water elemental" isn't far from "how do you load a crossbow that fast" to my taste.

Obviously, I load a crossbow that fast by having my water elemental skeleton help. (It's spring-loaded.)

[shroudb]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think selective realism is a bad idea in a game like this, and "how do you make a skeleton thing out of a water elemental" isn't far from "how do you load a crossbow that fast" to my taste.

it's less of selective realism and more of description of the ability. But you do you, as I said, I do expect table variation* on this ability, and that's not a bad thing. As long as the GM and the player come to an understanding and they are having fun, all is ok.

*this stems from the fact that "corpse" is not a defined term but it clearly is of importance for a host of abilities (like the one Commander tactic that you use the corpse of a creature as Cover as an example, I wouldn't allow people to use ashes of a disintegrated enemy for that one either).