Consistency is an important part of managing player expectations and keeping the game flowing. Generally it is preferable to avoid the game devolving into a philosophical argument over what "life force" is and what has it. Liches for example are Undead but explicitly have a soul. Probably the worst case example is Flying Sword versus a Dancing Sword. Trying to decide what has a "life force" consistently and predictably would be a nightmare. What about a Shambling Mound or a Gargoyle?
Also the argument being made is not that the rules for Path to the Grave lack text prohibiting targeting undead (though this is true). Rather it is the opposite, the targeting rules for Path to the Grave instructs the player to "choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you". Per the Monster Manual all Monsters are Creatures and encompass anything the players have the potential to interact with, fight, and kill. Also from the Monster Manual, Undead is a Type of Monster. So by instructing the player to choose a Creature this necessarily includes all Monsters which necessarily includes all Undead.
The usage of the term Creature in the targeting rules gives us a clear and predictable answer to all of the examples I posed earlier. This encompassing nature of the term Creature is why spells like Cure Wounds and Resurrection have additional language to exclude Undead, and spells like Hold Person use the term Humanoid instead of Creature.
As for the distinction between flavor and mechanics both exist throughout the various rule books. For example classes start with several paragraphs of flavor text describing the fantasy the class is meant to embody. It is not until you reach the Class Features section that the actual mechanics of how the class works is described. Similarly, many spells start with a sentence or two of flavor text. Flame Blade for example describes the creation of a fiery scimitar but then goes on to mechanically grant a custom action to make a melee spell attack. Where as Shadow Blade has very similar flavor but mechanically is very different, and creates an actual weapon and can be used in the same way as any other weapon.
This distinction is further detailed in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in the section on Personalizing Spells. To summarize it says "Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. ... However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell. They also can’t make one spell seem like another—you can’t, for example, make a magic missile look like a fireball."
@Plaguescarred "The thing is, spells, traits or features that target creatures without exclusions affect all types of creatures"
I'm not sure your logic would carry in all circumstances (maybe it would...I'm just not sure of it), but for the sake of argument, let's say I agree completely. My whole point is that the words "life force" in the ability description exclude undead because undead have no life force...just some sort of abominable mimicry of one.
The word "soul" is used in the True Resurrection spell description - the spell restores life if the soul is free and willing. Perhaps that word - "soul" - is a good analogy for "life force". Perhaps undead are walking dead with no soul. It's all speculation and subjective interpretation.
Like I said, this has been an interesting discussion. My purpose here has evolved from that of seeking other peoples' thoughts to that of making the case that given the wording of the ability, the only real consensus possible is that it is a GM discretion thing. I'm not sure everyone who's weighed in would agree, but that's how the cookie crumbles :)
Thanks for your thoughts on it.
You're welcome. Your angle on life force and soul is considerable despite having no rule support and DM's discretion is a thing, as explained in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything rules to remember;
1. THE DM ADJUDICATES THE RULES The rules of D&D cover many of the twists and turns that come up in play, but the possibilities are so vast that the rules can't cover everything. When you encounter something that the rules don't cover or if you're unsure how to interpret a rule, the DM decides how to proceed, aiming for a course that brings the most enjoyment to your whole group.
Consistency is an important part of managing player expectations and keeping the game flowing. Generally it is preferable to avoid the game devolving into a philosophical argument over what "life force" is and what has it. Liches for example are Undead but explicitly have a soul. Probably the worst case example is Flying Sword versus a Dancing Sword. Trying to decide what has a "life force" consistently and predictably would be a nightmare. What about a Shambling Mound or a Gargoyle?
Also the argument being made is not that the rules for Path to the Grave lack text prohibiting targeting undead (though this is true). Rather it is the opposite, the targeting rules for Path to the Grave instructs the player to "choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you". Per the Monster Manual all Monsters are Creatures and encompass anything the players have the potential to interact with, fight, and kill. Also from the Monster Manual, Undead is a Type of Monster. So by instructing the player to choose a Creature this necessarily includes all Monsters which necessarily includes all Undead.
The usage of the term Creature in the targeting rules gives us a clear and predictable answer to all of the examples I posed earlier. This encompassing nature of the term Creature is why spells like Cure Wounds and Resurrection have additional language to exclude Undead, and spells like Hold Person use the term Humanoid instead of Creature.
As for the distinction between flavor and mechanics both exist throughout the various rule books. For example classes start with several paragraphs of flavor text describing the fantasy the class is meant to embody. It is not until you reach the Class Features section that the actual mechanics of how the class works is described. Similarly, many spells start with a sentence or two of flavor text. Flame Blade for example describes the creation of a fiery scimitar but then goes on to mechanically grant a custom action to make a melee spell attack. Where as Shadow Blade has very similar flavor but mechanically is very different, and creates an actual weapon and can be used in the same way as any other weapon.
This distinction is further detailed in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in the section on Personalizing Spells. To summarize it says "Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. ... However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell. They also can’t make one spell seem like another—you can’t, for example, make a magic missile look like a fireball."
Hopefully this helps explain why so many people have answered your question in the way they have.
Thanks for a well organized post, and for putting forth the effort to support your opinions with references. You don't raise any new perspectives not already discussed in this thread, but your analogies and citations certainly breath some fresh air into a discussion I was pretty well over with.
That said, there is much there I have a different perspective on. Not saying you're "wrong" (if that is even possible in a game like this)…just that I see other perspectives that can also be reasonably supported. So I'd like to rebut some of your points. It is my sincere hope that you will appreciate the difference between the friendly debate of a rebuttal and "trolling".
- "Trying to decide what has a "life force" consistently and predictably would be a nightmare."
It is really quite simple. Undead - no life force (as suggested by the Monster Manual Introduction which defines undead as "once-living"...as in no longer living). And any other creature - yes...life force, including constructs, as discussed here as having a "tiny spark of life". Shambling mounds are a living plant (7th paragraph down)...and gargoyles are a construct. That said, I do see your point and will stipulate that if you dig far enough you can probably find some creature other than an undead that is in a life force grey area. I just don't share the opinion that such an occurrence would come anywhere close to the level of life force deal-breaker.
- "So by instructing the player to choose a Creature this necessarily includes all Monsters which necessarily includes all Undead."
There are many spells and effects that use the term "creature", yet will not affect all creatures. For example, look at Acid Splash, which also specifies "creature". The spell will not work against a Black Pudding, which is a creature. I see little difference in the nature of black puddings' immunity to acid protecting them from an acid spell vs. an Undead's lack of life protecting them from an ability with which the PC must "mark another creature’s life force for termination.".
- "...many spells start with a sentence or two of flavor text. Flame Blade for example..."
The first sentence of Flame Blade reads: "You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand." With respect, this cannot be characterized as flavor text. The need for a free hand is a mechanic. And what happens if the caster has no free hand? Spell failure is one eminently reasonable possibility. There are other possibilities as well...making it a GM discretion thing in my view. Similarly, the first sentence of Path to the Grave reads: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination." What if that creature has no life force to mark?
Hopefully, this will help explain why I believe this issue can be reasonably viewed from multiple perspectives, and that there is no single interpretation which must be anointed as RAW.
The Acid Splash can target a black pudding since it target any creature, including ooze, but being immune to acid damage, it would deal no damage. But it remains an eligible target none the less.
Hopefully, this will help explain why I believe this issue can be reasonably viewed from multiple perspectives, and that there is no single interpretation which must be anointed as RAW.
Well, as has been pointed out multiple times, according to RAW PTTG can be used against undead, no interpretation needed. Everything about undead lacking a life force is something you yourself made up without support from the rules.
The Acid Splash can target a black pudding since it target any creature, including ooze, but being immune to acid damage, it would deal no damage. But it remains an eligible target none the less.
Just as easy to say Pathway to the Grave can target an undead, but having no life force to mark, it would simply wash over like acid on a black pudding.
The Acid Splash can target a black pudding since it target any creature, including ooze, but being immune to acid damage, it would deal no damage. But it remains an eligible target none the less.
Just as easy to say Pathway to the Grave can target an undead, but having no life force to mark, it would simply wash over like acid on a black pudding.
A DM can certainly decide to rule this way, but no undead as written is immune to the effect Channel Divinity: Path of the Grave specifically. Monsters immunity normally covers damage type or condition.
The Acid Splash can target a black pudding since it target any creature, including ooze, but being immune to acid damage, it would deal no damage. But it remains an eligible target none the less.
Just as easy to say Pathway to the Grave can target an undead, but having no life force to mark, it would simply wash over like acid on a black pudding.
Where in the rules does it say that undead are immune to the effects of PttG?
A DM can certainly decide to rule this way, but no undead as written is immune to the effect Channel Divinity: Path of the Grave specifically.
I understand this is how you feel. You've done a great job of expressing it multiple times. And I don't necessarily disagree. But I do believe the text in ability regarding life force CAN be interpreted as a "written" indicator that undead won't be affected. And for the nth time, I am not insisting this is the only way it can be viewed...just that it is one possible interpretation that deserves consideration.
Which brings the entire discussion back around to something I touched on in an earlier post. I believe the only way to be absolutely sure is through a designer ruling on the intent. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such a ruling was something to the effect of "of course it works on undead you silly wabbit!". My whole point has been there is enough meat there in an alternative viewpoint to where the intent of effectiveness on undead isn't a slam dunk given until such a ruling takes place.
- "Trying to decide what has a "life force" consistently and predictably would be a nightmare."
It is really quite simple. Undead - no life force (as suggested by the Monster Manual Introduction which defines undead as "once-living"...as in no longer living). And any other creature - yes...life force, including constructs, as discussed here as having a "tiny spark of life". Shambling mounds are a living plant (7th paragraph down)...and gargoyles are a construct. That said, I do see your point and will stipulate that if you dig far enough you can probably find some creature other than an undead that is in a life force grey area. I just don't share the opinion that such an occurrence would come anywhere close to the level of life force deal-breaker.
My point was not that it is hard to draw a line between what has a "life force" and what doesn't, my point was that different people will draw that line differently. For example, from your posts you seem to believe that Undead clearly do not have a "life force" and that souls count as a "life force". As I mentioned a Lich is Undead and it has a soul. I do not know if you would allow Path to the Grave to work on a Lich and I cannot predict how you would rule if this scenario comes up in play. Similarly you seem alright with allowing Path to the Grave to affect a Flying Sword but not a Skeleton and I don't understand why. Perhaps I overstate or misunderstand your position, but you seem okay allowing some targets but not others that seem very similar to me. I don't mean to try to form a consensus about what does and does not have a "life force", I only mean to point out that reasonable minds can disagree and that these disagreements can cause friction at the table.
- "So by instructing the player to choose a Creature this necessarily includes all Monsters which necessarily includes all Undead."
There are many spells and effects that use the term "creature", yet will not affect all creatures. For example, look at Acid Splash, which also specifies "creature". The spell will not work against a Black Pudding, which is a creature. I see little difference in the nature of black puddings' immunity to acid protecting them from an acid spell vs. an Undead's lack of life protecting them from an ability with which the PC must "mark another creature’s life force for termination.".
A Black Pudding is a valid target for Acid Splash. The reason Acid Splash will likely fail to do damage is because a Black Pudding has Acid damage listed as one of its Damage Immunities. There are monsters with specific immunities to class features, Revenants for example are immune to Turn Undead. However I am unaware of any monsters with a trait granting immunity to either Path to the Grave or Channel Divinity more broadly, one could exist though.
- "...many spells start with a sentence or two of flavor text. Flame Blade for example..."
The first sentence of Flame Blade reads: "You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand." With respect, this cannot be characterized as flavor text. The need for a free hand is a mechanic. And what happens if the caster has no free hand? Spell failure is one eminently reasonable possibility. There are other possibilities as well...making it a GM discretion thing in my view. Similarly, the first sentence of Path to the Grave reads: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination." What if that creature has no life force to mark?
My point was that Flame Blade is described as looking like a scimitar but is not mechanically treated like a weapon. Similarly the first sentence of Acid Splash states "You hurl a bubble of acid." but the spell does not actually call for the caster to make an attack roll, rather the targets must make a dexterity saving throw. As for Path to the Grave if you want to persuade others on this forum to give the term "life force" mechanical weight it would be helpful if you could cite where this is defined as a game term in the rules. As far as I am aware though no such definition exists and the term has as much mechanical weight as the word "hurl" in Acid Splash. It is evocative of the fantasy the designers want to create but it does not provide information on how the feature works.
But I would encourage you to run your game in a way that is fun for you and your players above all. If you want to give the term "life force" mechanical weight I would just recommend talking about it with your players and being open to their opinions. I wouldn't want this to be the cause of an argument at your table.
A DM can certainly decide to rule this way, but no undead as written is immune to the effect Channel Divinity: Path of the Grave specifically.
I understand this is how you feel.
Has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with RAW.
You've done a great job of expressing it multiple times. And I don't necessarily disagree. But I do believe the text in ability regarding life force CAN be interpreted as a "written" indicator that undead won't be affected. And for the nth time, I am not insisting this is the only way it can be viewed...just that it is one possible interpretation that deserves consideration.
As many people have mentioned, there is nothing in the rules that indicates that your own made up version of the rules is supported by the RAW.
Which brings the entire discussion back around to something I touched on in an earlier post. I believe the only way to be absolutely sure is through a designer ruling on the intent. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such a ruling was something to the effect of "of course it works on undead you silly wabbit!". My whole point has been there is enough meat there in an alternative viewpoint to where the intent of effectiveness on undead isn't a slam dunk given until such a ruling takes place.
There is no need for such a sruling since the RAW is quite clear. Nothing in the rules for PttG says that it doesn't affect undead so the case can be closed there. No, if you want to go on with your own made up inerpretation of "life force" and undead being "dead" (despite undead literally NOT being "dead" but *un*-dead) there is nothing in the rules that says undead lack a life force. So in both cases the RAW is quite clear.
Monster Manual pg 6 “TYPE A monster's type speaks to its fundamental nature. Certain spells, magic items, class features, and other effects in the game interact in special ways with creatures of a particular type. For example, an arrow of dragon slaying deals extra damage not only to dragons but also other creatures of the dragon type, such as dragon turtles and wyverns. The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own.”
The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own.
Monster Manual pg 7. “TAGS A monster might have one or more tags appended to its type, in parentheses. For example, an orc has the humanoid (orc) type. The parenthetical tags provide additional categorization for certain creatures. The tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them. For instance, a spear that is especially effective at fighting demons would work against any monster that has the demon tag.”
The tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them.
Which brings the entire discussion back around to something I touched on in an earlier post. I believe the only way to be absolutely sure is through a designer ruling on the intent. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such a ruling was something to the effect of "of course it works on undead you silly wabbit!". My whole point has been there is enough meat there in an alternative viewpoint to where the intent of effectiveness on undead isn't a slam dunk given until such a ruling takes place.
I wouldn't hold my breath. There are plenty of actual rules questions that go unanswered. I've never heard of a question with no rules related to it being answered.
Your "meat" is a personal opinion about lore/flavor that the rules never mention at any point. The rules do explain that undead are creatures and PttG works on creatures with no specified exceptions. That is the "slam dunk": P works on C, and U=C, so P works on U.
It is really much more straightforward than you are pretending it is. The rules don't use subtle clues like "oh, but they described the action as targeting 'life force'. Why would they use that specific vague term not used anywhere else in the rules? Unless it means something completely different than the rest of the more clear rules plainly state."
Since it has been asked for multiple times, here it is.
The Monster Manual Introduction defines the Undead Type as "once-living". By definition, this means they no longer possess life.
The first sentence of the Path to the Grave ability is this: Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.
Written directly into the ability is that it must "...mark another creature's life...". The word "life" is what's important. And undead have no life to be marked.
RAW.
Now, I'm done with this conversation. It's been interesting and educational. But it has also skirted the edge of dogma a few times and that's just no fun at all, especially in a game rooted in imagination and creativity where the primary rule above all others is GM discretion in all things and every table should expect variations in how rules are interpreted. So I wish you all great gaming and happy times, however you choose to use Path to the Grave.
Since it has been asked for multiple times, here it is.
The Monster Manual Introduction defines the Undead Type as "once-living". By definition, this means they no longer possess life.
The first sentence of the Path to the Grave ability is this: Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.
Written directly into the ability is that it must "...mark another creature's life...". The word "life" is what's important. And undead have no life to be marked.
RAW.
Now, I'm done with this conversation. It's been interesting and educational. But it has also skirted the edge of dogma a few times and that's just no fun at all, especially in a game rooted in imagination and creativity where the primary rule above all others is GM discretion in all things and every table should expect variations in how rules are interpreted. So I wish you all great gaming and happy times, however you choose to use Path to the Grave.
You’re not going to acknowledge the actual relevant monster manual rules I found for you in the book? Typed them out on my iPhone for you and even bolded the parts that seemed most relevant to creature types? The part that clears up that there are no rules regarding creature types themselves unless the types are expressly mentioned in a feature?
You're completely free to ask a question, ignore every response, completely misunderstand what RAW means, and leave with "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree." Just keep in mind that absolutely nobody is going to like it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Since it has been asked for multiple times, here it is.
The Monster Manual Introduction defines the Undead Type as "once-living". By definition, this means they no longer possess life.
The first sentence of the Path to the Grave ability is this: Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.
Written directly into the ability is that it must "...mark another creature's life...". The word "life" is what's important. And undead have no life to be marked.
RAW.
Now, I'm done with this conversation. It's been interesting and educational. But it has also skirted the edge of dogma a few times and that's just no fun at all, especially in a game rooted in imagination and creativity where the primary rule above all others is GM discretion in all things and every table should expect variations in how rules are interpreted. So I wish you all great gaming and happy times, however you choose to use Path to the Grave.
You’re not going to acknowledge the actual relevant monster manual rules I found for you in the book? Typed them out on my iPhone for you and even bolded the parts that seemed most relevant to creature types? The part that clears up that there are no rules regarding creature types themselves unless the types are expressly mentioned in a feature?
like cure wounds? The example 2 pages ago?
Not really interested in debating whether or not "description" or "definition" is the same as "rule" and I shouldn't need to point out it is indeed the feature itself which expressly mentions it targets the creature's life for termination. Happy gaming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you own a monster manual?
Consistency is an important part of managing player expectations and keeping the game flowing. Generally it is preferable to avoid the game devolving into a philosophical argument over what "life force" is and what has it. Liches for example are Undead but explicitly have a soul. Probably the worst case example is Flying Sword versus a Dancing Sword. Trying to decide what has a "life force" consistently and predictably would be a nightmare. What about a Shambling Mound or a Gargoyle?
Also the argument being made is not that the rules for Path to the Grave lack text prohibiting targeting undead (though this is true). Rather it is the opposite, the targeting rules for Path to the Grave instructs the player to "choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you". Per the Monster Manual all Monsters are Creatures and encompass anything the players have the potential to interact with, fight, and kill. Also from the Monster Manual, Undead is a Type of Monster. So by instructing the player to choose a Creature this necessarily includes all Monsters which necessarily includes all Undead.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/subclasses#ChannelDivinityPathtotheGrave
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/mm/introduction#WhatIsaMonster
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/mm/introduction#Type
The usage of the term Creature in the targeting rules gives us a clear and predictable answer to all of the examples I posed earlier. This encompassing nature of the term Creature is why spells like Cure Wounds and Resurrection have additional language to exclude Undead, and spells like Hold Person use the term Humanoid instead of Creature.
As for the distinction between flavor and mechanics both exist throughout the various rule books. For example classes start with several paragraphs of flavor text describing the fantasy the class is meant to embody. It is not until you reach the Class Features section that the actual mechanics of how the class works is described. Similarly, many spells start with a sentence or two of flavor text. Flame Blade for example describes the creation of a fiery scimitar but then goes on to mechanically grant a custom action to make a melee spell attack. Where as Shadow Blade has very similar flavor but mechanically is very different, and creates an actual weapon and can be used in the same way as any other weapon.
This distinction is further detailed in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in the section on Personalizing Spells. To summarize it says "Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. ... However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell. They also can’t make one spell seem like another—you can’t, for example, make a magic missile look like a fireball."
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tcoe/magical-miscellany#PersonalizingSpells
Hopefully this helps explain why so many people have answered your question in the way they have.
You're welcome. Your angle on life force and soul is considerable despite having no rule support and DM's discretion is a thing, as explained in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything rules to remember;
Nothing in Path to the Grave says it doesn't work on undead so by RAW, it works on undead.
Thanks for a well organized post, and for putting forth the effort to support your opinions with references. You don't raise any new perspectives not already discussed in this thread, but your analogies and citations certainly breath some fresh air into a discussion I was pretty well over with.
That said, there is much there I have a different perspective on. Not saying you're "wrong" (if that is even possible in a game like this)…just that I see other perspectives that can also be reasonably supported. So I'd like to rebut some of your points. It is my sincere hope that you will appreciate the difference between the friendly debate of a rebuttal and "trolling".
- "Trying to decide what has a "life force" consistently and predictably would be a nightmare."
It is really quite simple. Undead - no life force (as suggested by the Monster Manual Introduction which defines undead as "once-living"...as in no longer living). And any other creature - yes...life force, including constructs, as discussed here as having a "tiny spark of life". Shambling mounds are a living plant (7th paragraph down)...and gargoyles are a construct. That said, I do see your point and will stipulate that if you dig far enough you can probably find some creature other than an undead that is in a life force grey area. I just don't share the opinion that such an occurrence would come anywhere close to the level of life force deal-breaker.
- "So by instructing the player to choose a Creature this necessarily includes all Monsters which necessarily includes all Undead."
There are many spells and effects that use the term "creature", yet will not affect all creatures. For example, look at Acid Splash, which also specifies "creature". The spell will not work against a Black Pudding, which is a creature. I see little difference in the nature of black puddings' immunity to acid protecting them from an acid spell vs. an Undead's lack of life protecting them from an ability with which the PC must "mark another creature’s life force for termination.".
- "...many spells start with a sentence or two of flavor text. Flame Blade for example..."
The first sentence of Flame Blade reads: "You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand." With respect, this cannot be characterized as flavor text. The need for a free hand is a mechanic. And what happens if the caster has no free hand? Spell failure is one eminently reasonable possibility. There are other possibilities as well...making it a GM discretion thing in my view. Similarly, the first sentence of Path to the Grave reads: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination." What if that creature has no life force to mark?
Hopefully, this will help explain why I believe this issue can be reasonably viewed from multiple perspectives, and that there is no single interpretation which must be anointed as RAW.
The Acid Splash can target a black pudding since it target any creature, including ooze, but being immune to acid damage, it would deal no damage. But it remains an eligible target none the less.
Well, as has been pointed out multiple times, according to RAW PTTG can be used against undead, no interpretation needed. Everything about undead lacking a life force is something you yourself made up without support from the rules.
Just as easy to say Pathway to the Grave can target an undead, but having no life force to mark, it would simply wash over like acid on a black pudding.
Just as easy to say Pathway to the Grave can target an undead, but having no life force to mark, it would simply wash over like acid on a black pudding.
A DM can certainly decide to rule this way, but no undead as written is immune to the effect Channel Divinity: Path of the Grave specifically. Monsters immunity normally covers damage type or condition.
Where in the rules does it say that undead are immune to the effects of PttG?
I understand this is how you feel. You've done a great job of expressing it multiple times. And I don't necessarily disagree. But I do believe the text in ability regarding life force CAN be interpreted as a "written" indicator that undead won't be affected. And for the nth time, I am not insisting this is the only way it can be viewed...just that it is one possible interpretation that deserves consideration.
Which brings the entire discussion back around to something I touched on in an earlier post. I believe the only way to be absolutely sure is through a designer ruling on the intent. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such a ruling was something to the effect of "of course it works on undead you silly wabbit!". My whole point has been there is enough meat there in an alternative viewpoint to where the intent of effectiveness on undead isn't a slam dunk given until such a ruling takes place.
My point was not that it is hard to draw a line between what has a "life force" and what doesn't, my point was that different people will draw that line differently. For example, from your posts you seem to believe that Undead clearly do not have a "life force" and that souls count as a "life force". As I mentioned a Lich is Undead and it has a soul. I do not know if you would allow Path to the Grave to work on a Lich and I cannot predict how you would rule if this scenario comes up in play. Similarly you seem alright with allowing Path to the Grave to affect a Flying Sword but not a Skeleton and I don't understand why. Perhaps I overstate or misunderstand your position, but you seem okay allowing some targets but not others that seem very similar to me. I don't mean to try to form a consensus about what does and does not have a "life force", I only mean to point out that reasonable minds can disagree and that these disagreements can cause friction at the table.
A Black Pudding is a valid target for Acid Splash. The reason Acid Splash will likely fail to do damage is because a Black Pudding has Acid damage listed as one of its Damage Immunities. There are monsters with specific immunities to class features, Revenants for example are immune to Turn Undead. However I am unaware of any monsters with a trait granting immunity to either Path to the Grave or Channel Divinity more broadly, one could exist though.
My point was that Flame Blade is described as looking like a scimitar but is not mechanically treated like a weapon. Similarly the first sentence of Acid Splash states "You hurl a bubble of acid." but the spell does not actually call for the caster to make an attack roll, rather the targets must make a dexterity saving throw. As for Path to the Grave if you want to persuade others on this forum to give the term "life force" mechanical weight it would be helpful if you could cite where this is defined as a game term in the rules. As far as I am aware though no such definition exists and the term has as much mechanical weight as the word "hurl" in Acid Splash. It is evocative of the fantasy the designers want to create but it does not provide information on how the feature works.
But I would encourage you to run your game in a way that is fun for you and your players above all. If you want to give the term "life force" mechanical weight I would just recommend talking about it with your players and being open to their opinions. I wouldn't want this to be the cause of an argument at your table.
Has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with RAW.
As many people have mentioned, there is nothing in the rules that indicates that your own made up version of the rules is supported by the RAW.
There is no need for such a sruling since the RAW is quite clear. Nothing in the rules for PttG says that it doesn't affect undead so the case can be closed there. No, if you want to go on with your own made up inerpretation of "life force" and undead being "dead" (despite undead literally NOT being "dead" but *un*-dead) there is nothing in the rules that says undead lack a life force. So in both cases the RAW is quite clear.
Monster Manual pg 6
“TYPE
A monster's type speaks to its fundamental nature. Certain spells, magic items, class features, and other effects in the game interact in special ways with creatures of a particular type. For example, an arrow of dragon slaying deals extra damage not only to dragons but also other creatures of the dragon type, such as dragon turtles and wyverns.
The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own.”
The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own.
Monster Manual pg 7.
“TAGS
A monster might have one or more tags appended to
its type, in parentheses. For example, an orc has the humanoid (orc) type. The parenthetical tags provide additional categorization for certain creatures. The tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them. For instance, a spear that is especially effective at fighting demons would work against any monster that has the demon tag.”
The tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them.
I wouldn't hold my breath. There are plenty of actual rules questions that go unanswered. I've never heard of a question with no rules related to it being answered.
Your "meat" is a personal opinion about lore/flavor that the rules never mention at any point. The rules do explain that undead are creatures and PttG works on creatures with no specified exceptions. That is the "slam dunk": P works on C, and U=C, so P works on U.
It is really much more straightforward than you are pretending it is. The rules don't use subtle clues like "oh, but they described the action as targeting 'life force'. Why would they use that specific vague term not used anywhere else in the rules? Unless it means something completely different than the rest of the more clear rules plainly state."
Since it has been asked for multiple times, here it is.
The Monster Manual Introduction defines the Undead Type as "once-living". By definition, this means they no longer possess life.
The first sentence of the Path to the Grave ability is this: Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.
Written directly into the ability is that it must "...mark another creature's life...". The word "life" is what's important. And undead have no life to be marked.
RAW.
Now, I'm done with this conversation. It's been interesting and educational. But it has also skirted the edge of dogma a few times and that's just no fun at all, especially in a game rooted in imagination and creativity where the primary rule above all others is GM discretion in all things and every table should expect variations in how rules are interpreted. So I wish you all great gaming and happy times, however you choose to use Path to the Grave.
You’re not going to acknowledge the actual relevant monster manual rules I found for you in the book? Typed them out on my iPhone for you and even bolded the parts that seemed most relevant to creature types? The part that clears up that there are no rules regarding creature types themselves unless the types are expressly mentioned in a feature?
like cure wounds? The example 2 pages ago?
You're completely free to ask a question, ignore every response, completely misunderstand what RAW means, and leave with "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree." Just keep in mind that absolutely nobody is going to like it.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Not really interested in debating whether or not "description" or "definition" is the same as "rule" and I shouldn't need to point out it is indeed the feature itself which expressly mentions it targets the creature's life for termination. Happy gaming.