I have a player who wants to use a homebrew Paladin Oath (Oath of the Doomguide) which is a modified version of the Cleric Grave Domain. The Oath includes the exact same Channel Divinity capabilities as the domain, including Path to the Grave.
The text for Path to the grave is this:
Path to the Grave. As an action, you can mark another creatures life force for termination. Choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you, cursing it until the end of your next turn. The next time you or an ally of yours hits the cursed creature with an attack, the creature has vulnerability to all of that attacks damage, and then the curse ends.
My conundrum is the seeming conflict in this text between the words "life force" and "creature".
I believe the key text in the ability is "life force". Undead do not have a life force as they are UNDEAD, so this ability should not apply to undead. My player doesn't see it that way and believes the key text here is "Choose one creature", and the ability should apply to any creature chosen.
Of course, I'm the DM and my ruling will apply, and the player is OK with that, but I said I would think on it. So here I am..."thinking" :) What do you think?
Undead are creatures. There aren't any rules for "life force," but it can probably be equated with HP (which undead have). Effects that don't work on undead or constructs because of their less than natural life always say so, this doesn't. Just consider undead to have "unnatural life force" thus UNdead.
Would be kind of weird for its damaging increasing ability not to work on undead. Mechanically there’s no reason given why it wouldn’t. Effects that don’t work on undead or construct say so within their descriptions.
Cure wounds for example has this piece in its spell description. “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.”
the grave domain is also thematically described as seeking to put wandering spirits to rest, DESTROY THE UNDEAD, and ease the suffering of the dying.
3 responses saying essentially the same thing...and certainly reasonable.
It is hard to get past that specific choice of words by whoever wrote the text - "life force" - setting forth how this ability works. I don't believe it can be argued that undead have a "life force". Quite the contrary, the description of the Animate Dead spell specifically calls their animation a "foul mimicry of life". A mimic of the thing is not the thing.
That said, the best argument that this ability should work on undead is that the ability text description doesn't say it won't. Still, there are other things considered canon in this rule set that are not explicitly stated. And of course, many situations the written rules just don't cover, leaving GM discretion as the final arbiter.
3 responses saying essentially the same thing...and certainly reasonable.
It is hard to get past that specific choice of words by whoever wrote the text - "life force" - setting forth how this ability works. I don't believe it can be argued that undead have a "life force". Quite the contrary, the description of the Animate Dead spell specifically calls their animation a "foul mimicry of life". A mimic of the thing is not the thing.
That said, the best argument that this ability should work on undead is that the ability text description doesn't say it won't. Still, there are other things considered canon in this rule set that are not explicitly stated. And of course, many situations the written rules just don't cover, leaving GM discretion as the final arbiter.
You got your RAW answer. RAW, the life force flavor text doesn't mean anything. RAW, undead creatures are alive (which is why resurrection spells specifically call out not working on them). RAW, Path to the Grave works on undead.
The DM is free to house rule, but it would be weird if THE anti-undead cleric had its undead hating God given ability specifically not harm undead.
3 responses saying essentially the same thing...and certainly reasonable.
It is hard to get past that specific choice of words by whoever wrote the text - "life force" - setting forth how this ability works. I don't believe it can be argued that undead have a "life force". Quite the contrary, the description of the Animate Dead spell specifically calls their animation a "foul mimicry of life". A mimic of the thing is not the thing.
That said, the best argument that this ability should work on undead is that the ability text description doesn't say it won't. Still, there are other things considered canon in this rule set that are not explicitly stated. And of course, many situations the written rules just don't cover, leaving GM discretion as the final arbiter.
The DM is indeed free to rule anyway they see fit so long as it doesn’t alienate the table enough for the group to quit playing.
this is the rules forum though, and you got the consensus on how that rule works.
If you want more punishing mechanics or hard walls against player abilities perhaps another game system would work? Prior DnD editions seemed to have quite a few more features and mechanics that shut down everyone’s abilities.
The thing is, spells, traits or features that target creatures without exclusions affect all types of creatures. In this case exclusions must be spelled out to specifically not have an effect on them. This is the fundamental concept of Specific vs General
Game elements such as the feature Lay on Hands or the spell Blight for exemple has no effect on undeads or contructs, because it specifically say so. Path to the Grave doesn't say this, so it has an effect on any creatures, including undeads and constructs.
@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 :)
Why would undead not have a life force? They have hit points and they are considered creatures. They are the living dead (as opposed to the dead dead, which does not constitute as a creature or have any hit points).
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)
@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.
I don’t think that was the purpose but I admit I could be wrong.
I’m going to point out once again that this is the rules and mechanics forum.
it’s quite disingenuous to seek clarification regarding the mechanics of the game in the rules and mechanics forum and latch on to the GM discretion wagon. We all already know that each of us can play differently at any table and that the GM has an obligation to keep the game going and make rulings.
perhaps the tips and tricks, homebrew, or DM section would have been a better place for this discussion?
Why would undead not have a life force? They have hit points and they are considered creatures. They are the living dead (as opposed to the dead dead, which does not constitute as a creature or have any hit points).
Why would undead havea life force? They are dead. Just because they can move doesn't mean there's any lifein them. Just look at my ex wife...
But seriously, someone made a point earlier about equating HP with life force. The PHB defines hit points thusly: "Your character’s hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations."
So...um...OK...at best the equivalence is arguable. Consequently, stating such an opinion as fact doesn't sit well with me. It is an opinion, no more or less valid than the opinion that the True Resurrection spell suggests a soul (rather than HP) is somehow tied in with the difference between living and undead. Personally, I find it far easier to equate a soul to a "life force" than HPs, and a quick reading of the True Resurrection spell removes ANY doubt about whether or not undead have a soul. But to each their own...
That's why I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong", but rather "there are multiple reasonable interpretations here" and it falls to GM discretion.
@Bobbybaker "it’s quite disingenuous to seek clarification regarding the mechanics of the game in the rules and mechanics forum and latch on to the GM discretion wagon. We all already know that each of us can play differently at any table and that the GM has an obligation to keep the game going and make rulings."
Rule 0 is GM discretion in all things, my friend...even outright changing of the exact rules as written for whatever purpose the GM deems appropriate at their table...so there is no more appropriate place for mentioning it than a Rules and Mechanics forum. And what is disingenuous, some might say outright arrogant, is to latch on to the idea that one's own opinions are the only reasonable RAW interpretation.
@Bobbybaker "it’s quite disingenuous to seek clarification regarding the mechanics of the game in the rules and mechanics forum and latch on to the GM discretion wagon. We all already know that each of us can play differently at any table and that the GM has an obligation to keep the game going and make rulings."
Rule 0 is GM discretion in all things, my friend...even outright changing of the exact rules as written for whatever purpose the GM deems appropriate at their table...so there is no more appropriate place for mentioning it than a Rules and Mechanics forum. And what is disingenuous, some might say outright arrogant, is to latch on to the idea that one's own opinions are the only reasonable RAW interpretation.
You have an almost 2 year old account that agues over how perception works and weather or not player characters features do what they say.
12 posts, trolling.
I find it interesting that your comments are no longer about Path to the Grave. Its almost as if you've got nothing reasonable to refute the positions I've put forth on that subject...so you're trying to redirect to something completely irrelevant - the other 12 posts I've made in 2 years on DNDBeyond forums. LOL. Thanks for the laugh.
If you manage to come up with anything of substance to say about Path to the Grave...I'm all ears.
Why did you even ask, if your plan is just to end it with "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree?"
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)
Why did you even ask, if your plan is just to end it with "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree?"
I was looking for some piece of information that would definitively settle the question one way or another. No such thing has been presented. All that has been expressed here are opinions, some more reasonable-seeming than others, but still nothing concrete either way. That's perfectly OK...its just a game and there's no single "right" way to play it. And when an issue can be reasonably viewed in various ways, (i.e. the RAW is debatable) then it becomes a discussion about the INTENTof the rules, as opposed to RAW...and without first hand knowledge of that intent, this kind of thing that falls squarely into "GM discretion" territory for me.
Here's a good example for you - in the Sage Advice Compendium entry about Twinned Spells here, it lays out some highly specific bullets about how the ability works, and then goes on to acknowledge there still may be some confusion the player needs to turn to their GM to make a ruling on. And it goes even further to lay out some of the specific intentbehind how it was designed by the game designers themselves. I'd love to see more of this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, in our discussion, we have not nearly so much clear, definitive information to work with. We have opinions. And they'll differ.
But if you were running the table I was playing at and this question came up, I'd happily accept your ruling on it whether I agree with it or not. It's just a game, right?
Look, "life force" is not a rule or game mechanic. We can't provide a rules quote saying undead have something that isn't even a part of the game any more than you can provide a rule that says undead don't have something that isn't even part of the game.
You literally made up a rule asked us if it was RAW and are mad that we said no.
The RAW is that undead creatures are creatures and path to the grave works on creatures. That is it. Provide a rule that says otherwise. If "life force" is your argument, you need to provide a rule quote that in no uncertain terms says undead don't have it otherwise, you continue to have no argument at all.
3 responses saying essentially the same thing...and certainly reasonable.
It is hard to get past that specific choice of words by whoever wrote the text - "life force" - setting forth how this ability works. I don't believe it can be argued that undead have a "life force". Quite the contrary, the description of the Animate Dead spell specifically calls their animation a "foul mimicry of life". A mimic of the thing is not the thing.
Undead may not have “life force” per se, but they do obviously have an animating force similar enough to life force to “mimic” it. Think of it like chicory “coffee,” not really coffee but close enough to be referred to as coffee by some standards.
3 responses saying essentially the same thing...and certainly reasonable.
It is hard to get past that specific choice of words by whoever wrote the text - "life force" - setting forth how this ability works. I don't believe it can be argued that undead have a "life force". Quite the contrary, the description of the Animate Dead spell specifically calls their animation a "foul mimicry of life". A mimic of the thing is not the thing.
Undead may not have “life force” per se, but they do obviously have an animating force similar enough to life force to “mimic” it. Think of it like chicory “coffee,” not really coffee but close enough to be referred to as coffee by some standards.
Personally, I'd argue undead DO have life force. The rules don't say otherwise, there is some force keeping the creature alive, and the whole purpose of undeath for some creatures is to prevent their life force from running out and not die. And of course I've already mentioned how spells that bring creatures back to life (even the ones that don't care about "souls") have to specifically say it doesn't work on undead rather than there being some general rule for it. So there isn't even any circumstantial evidence to suggest undead don't have life force let alone an actual rule.
That is the problem with the "life force" argument in the first place. It is 0% rules and 100% opinion. This is not the thoughts and opinions forum, it is the rules and game mechanics forum. The RAW answer was given in the first reply and OP is just trolling by arguing against the only answer to their own question.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Simple question:
Does Path to the Grave work against undead?
Background:
I have a player who wants to use a homebrew Paladin Oath (Oath of the Doomguide) which is a modified version of the Cleric Grave Domain. The Oath includes the exact same Channel Divinity capabilities as the domain, including Path to the Grave.
The text for Path to the grave is this:
Path to the Grave. As an action, you can mark another creatures life force for termination. Choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you, cursing it until the end of your next turn. The next time you or an ally of yours hits the cursed creature with an attack, the creature has vulnerability to all of that attacks damage, and then the curse ends.
My conundrum is the seeming conflict in this text between the words "life force" and "creature".
I believe the key text in the ability is "life force". Undead do not have a life force as they are UNDEAD, so this ability should not apply to undead. My player doesn't see it that way and believes the key text here is "Choose one creature", and the ability should apply to any creature chosen.
Of course, I'm the DM and my ruling will apply, and the player is OK with that, but I said I would think on it. So here I am..."thinking" :) What do you think?
Undead are creatures. There aren't any rules for "life force," but it can probably be equated with HP (which undead have). Effects that don't work on undead or constructs because of their less than natural life always say so, this doesn't. Just consider undead to have "unnatural life force" thus UNdead.
I agree with DxJxC undeads aren't immune to the effect of Path of the Grave specifically so they should be affected just fine..
Would be kind of weird for its damaging increasing ability not to work on undead. Mechanically there’s no reason given why it wouldn’t. Effects that don’t work on undead or construct say so within their descriptions.
Cure wounds for example has this piece in its spell description. “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.”
the grave domain is also thematically described as seeking to put wandering spirits to rest, DESTROY THE UNDEAD, and ease the suffering of the dying.
3 responses saying essentially the same thing...and certainly reasonable.
It is hard to get past that specific choice of words by whoever wrote the text - "life force" - setting forth how this ability works. I don't believe it can be argued that undead have a "life force". Quite the contrary, the description of the Animate Dead spell specifically calls their animation a "foul mimicry of life". A mimic of the thing is not the thing.
That said, the best argument that this ability should work on undead is that the ability text description doesn't say it won't. Still, there are other things considered canon in this rule set that are not explicitly stated. And of course, many situations the written rules just don't cover, leaving GM discretion as the final arbiter.
You got your RAW answer. RAW, the life force flavor text doesn't mean anything. RAW, undead creatures are alive (which is why resurrection spells specifically call out not working on them). RAW, Path to the Grave works on undead.
The DM is free to house rule, but it would be weird if THE anti-undead cleric had its undead hating God given ability specifically not harm undead.
The DM is indeed free to rule anyway they see fit so long as it doesn’t alienate the table enough for the group to quit playing.
this is the rules forum though, and you got the consensus on how that rule works.
If you want more punishing mechanics or hard walls against player abilities perhaps another game system would work? Prior DnD editions seemed to have quite a few more features and mechanics that shut down everyone’s abilities.
It was reasonably argued, you’re just obviously on the other side of it in a rules mechanics forum.
The thing is, spells, traits or features that target creatures without exclusions affect all types of creatures. In this case exclusions must be spelled out to specifically not have an effect on them. This is the fundamental concept of Specific vs General
Game elements such as the feature Lay on Hands or the spell Blight for exemple has no effect on undeads or contructs, because it specifically say so. Path to the Grave doesn't say this, so it has an effect on any creatures, including undeads and constructs.
@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.
Why would undead not have a life force? They have hit points and they are considered creatures. They are the living dead (as opposed to the dead dead, which does not constitute as a creature or have any hit points).
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)
I don’t think that was the purpose but I admit I could be wrong.
I’m going to point out once again that this is the rules and mechanics forum.
it’s quite disingenuous to seek clarification regarding the mechanics of the game in the rules and mechanics forum and latch on to the GM discretion wagon. We all already know that each of us can play differently at any table and that the GM has an obligation to keep the game going and make rulings.
perhaps the tips and tricks, homebrew, or DM section would have been a better place for this discussion?
Why would undead have a life force? They are dead. Just because they can move doesn't mean there's any life in them. Just look at my ex wife...
But seriously, someone made a point earlier about equating HP with life force. The PHB defines hit points thusly: "Your character’s hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations."
So...um...OK...at best the equivalence is arguable. Consequently, stating such an opinion as fact doesn't sit well with me. It is an opinion, no more or less valid than the opinion that the True Resurrection spell suggests a soul (rather than HP) is somehow tied in with the difference between living and undead. Personally, I find it far easier to equate a soul to a "life force" than HPs, and a quick reading of the True Resurrection spell removes ANY doubt about whether or not undead have a soul. But to each their own...
That's why I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong", but rather "there are multiple reasonable interpretations here" and it falls to GM discretion.
@Bobbybaker "it’s quite disingenuous to seek clarification regarding the mechanics of the game in the rules and mechanics forum and latch on to the GM discretion wagon. We all already know that each of us can play differently at any table and that the GM has an obligation to keep the game going and make rulings."
Rule 0 is GM discretion in all things, my friend...even outright changing of the exact rules as written for whatever purpose the GM deems appropriate at their table...so there is no more appropriate place for mentioning it than a Rules and Mechanics forum. And what is disingenuous, some might say outright arrogant, is to latch on to the idea that one's own opinions are the only reasonable RAW interpretation.
I find it interesting that your comments are no longer about Path to the Grave. Its almost as if you've got nothing reasonable to refute the positions I've put forth on that subject...so you're trying to redirect to something completely irrelevant - the other 12 posts I've made in 2 years on DNDBeyond forums. LOL. Thanks for the laugh.
If you manage to come up with anything of substance to say about Path to the Grave...I'm all ears.
Why did you even ask, if your plan is just to end it with "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree?"
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)
I was looking for some piece of information that would definitively settle the question one way or another. No such thing has been presented. All that has been expressed here are opinions, some more reasonable-seeming than others, but still nothing concrete either way. That's perfectly OK...its just a game and there's no single "right" way to play it. And when an issue can be reasonably viewed in various ways, (i.e. the RAW is debatable) then it becomes a discussion about the INTENT of the rules, as opposed to RAW...and without first hand knowledge of that intent, this kind of thing that falls squarely into "GM discretion" territory for me.
Here's a good example for you - in the Sage Advice Compendium entry about Twinned Spells here, it lays out some highly specific bullets about how the ability works, and then goes on to acknowledge there still may be some confusion the player needs to turn to their GM to make a ruling on. And it goes even further to lay out some of the specific intent behind how it was designed by the game designers themselves. I'd love to see more of this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, in our discussion, we have not nearly so much clear, definitive information to work with. We have opinions. And they'll differ.
But if you were running the table I was playing at and this question came up, I'd happily accept your ruling on it whether I agree with it or not. It's just a game, right?
Look, "life force" is not a rule or game mechanic. We can't provide a rules quote saying undead have something that isn't even a part of the game any more than you can provide a rule that says undead don't have something that isn't even part of the game.
You literally made up a rule asked us if it was RAW and are mad that we said no.
The RAW is that undead creatures are creatures and path to the grave works on creatures. That is it. Provide a rule that says otherwise. If "life force" is your argument, you need to provide a rule quote that in no uncertain terms says undead don't have it otherwise, you continue to have no argument at all.
Undead may not have “life force” per se, but they do obviously have an animating force similar enough to life force to “mimic” it. Think of it like chicory “coffee,” not really coffee but close enough to be referred to as coffee by some standards.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Personally, I'd argue undead DO have life force. The rules don't say otherwise, there is some force keeping the creature alive, and the whole purpose of undeath for some creatures is to prevent their life force from running out and not die. And of course I've already mentioned how spells that bring creatures back to life (even the ones that don't care about "souls") have to specifically say it doesn't work on undead rather than there being some general rule for it. So there isn't even any circumstantial evidence to suggest undead don't have life force let alone an actual rule.
That is the problem with the "life force" argument in the first place. It is 0% rules and 100% opinion. This is not the thoughts and opinions forum, it is the rules and game mechanics forum. The RAW answer was given in the first reply and OP is just trolling by arguing against the only answer to their own question.