RAI: The ooze and the undead

[MrNobody]

[Cyanide don't read this post please!!!!]

Hello everybody!
I need your help to get all things ready for an encounter i'm planning for the next session, when the party i'm DMing will face an ARCANE OOZE (MM III, p.9, advanced, sentry ooze archetype... but that's not the point...).
So, this little puppy has an ability called "Spell Siphon" that makes it a tough enemy for arcane casters.

Spell Siphon (Su): An arcane ooze exerts a strange pull on arcane spell energy. Any time an arcane spellcaster begins his turn within 60 feet of an arcane ooze, he must make a DC 25 Fortitude save or lose a random spell of the highest spell level that he has available. For every spell lost by a victim in this manner, the arcane ooze gains temporary hit points equal to 5 × the level of the lost spell. These temporary hit points are lost after 1 hour. Line of effect between the spellcaster and the arcane ooze is necessary in order for this ability to work. The save DC is Constitution-based

The problem is that the party's main caster was recently turned into an undead and, beacuse of this, gain the trait that states.

Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

Now, RAW, Spell siphon requires Fortitude, it's not harmless and doesn't work on objects, so i think that the undead wizard should be immune to this ability.

But i'm not sure this use of rules persuades me. As i've always seen that undead immunity, it was caused by the fact that undeads lack of metabolism and any kind of vital energy: since most Fort-save effects affect metabolism (poison, disease, blindness, physical stats damage and drain and so on) or the vital energy (insta-kill, level drain...), the undead lacks those and so it is immune.

This specific ability, though, works differently: it attacks magic itself inside the caster and i fail to see how being an undead should protect a caster from this effect. Furthermore the ooze's ability states that "An arcane ooze exerts a strange pull on arcane spell energy". So i tend to read it as if the ability affects the spells and not the undead, that rolls the save only because you cannot make the spell roll a save on their own.

So i ask you: it would be forceful to have the undead wizard being affected by Spell siphon like anyone else or it would be a legitimate RAI interpretation?

Alternative and creative solutions to the problem are also appreciated. Thanks!:smallsmile:

[kaffalidjmah]

as i see it, your arcane ooze can absorb magic from your ARCANE caster. if he is divine, the ooze cannot, if he is undead, his saving throw will be ridicusly low, a "-" in costitution, for me, will mean -5 to the ability bonus, just like having 0. but this is my personal homebrew and is really useful only when your sorcerer is spamming disintegrate over that vampire...

anyhow, how i see it: the arcane ooze stole your personal magic reserve, but your body will try with all is strenght to retain his magical energy. when you are an undead, your body is dead. don't have any kind of strenght to oppose to everything that require his contribute, but on the other hand, if you are already dead some stuff are useless against you.

[Necroticplague]

If it simply attacked "magic itself", why doesn't it have some effect on magic items? I'd think exactly how spells work is a bit differently for undead and living creatures, which is why some magic just arbitrarily can't be used on them. After all, undead can't be targeted by Polymorph, either.


as i see it, your arcane ooze can absorb magic from your ARCANE caster. if he is divine, the ooze cannot, if he is undead, his saving throw will be ridicusly low, a "-" in costitution, for me, will mean -5 to the ability bonus, just like having 0. but this is my personal homebrew and is really useful only when your sorcerer is spamming disintegrate over that vampire...

anyhow, how i see it: the arcane ooze stole your personal magic reserve, but your body will try with all is strenght to retain his magical energy. when you are an undead, your body is dead. don't have any kind of strenght to oppose to everything that require his contribute, but on the other hand, if you are already dead some stuff are useless against you.
Actually, a "-" in a stat is a mod of 0, not -5.

[kaffalidjmah]

Actually, a "-" in a stat is a mod of 0, not -5.

i know, but is a personal rule i adopt as a master. you can't tell me that the body of a vampire, that is without any lifeforce, partially rotten with just the power of a malediction to raise and fight can resist to disingteration better then the body of a living one, but just a little more fragile (like 9 in costitution). it always feeled weird to me...like i said, when your body is alive, it actively try to resist those spell, when you are undead, your body will do nothing to help you. if you try to hit something that move slow, your most probably will hit, but if you try to hit something still? you will hit for sure

[Necroticplague]

i know, but is a personal rule i adopt as a master. you can't tell me that the body of a vampire, that is without any lifeforce, partially rotten with just the power of a malediction to raise and fight can resist to disingteration better then the body of a living one, but just a little more fragile (like 9 in costitution). it always feeled weird to me...like i said, when your body is alive, it actively try to resist those spell, when you are undead, your body will do nothing to help you. if you try to hit something that move slow, your most probably will hit, but if you try to hit something still? you will hit for sure

Exactly. It does nothing to help you, that's why it provides a +0. -5 is its body actively working against it.

[Crake]

i'd be tempted to houserule the save to a will save. It fixes this issue and, in my opinion, just makes a whole lot more sense

[Mr Adventurer]

If you do that I'd suggest bumping the save DC up by 5 points, because spellcasters.

And/or, have it accompanied by a Living Spell (Spark of Life)...

[atemu1234]

i know, but is a personal rule i adopt as a master. you can't tell me that the body of a vampire, that is without any lifeforce, partially rotten with just the power of a malediction to raise and fight can resist to disingteration better then the body of a living one, but just a little more fragile (like 9 in costitution). it always feeled weird to me...like i said, when your body is alive, it actively try to resist those spell, when you are undead, your body will do nothing to help you. if you try to hit something that move slow, your most probably will hit, but if you try to hit something still? you will hit for sure

Actually I'm fairly certain that if you're animated by the foul powers of undeath and unholy energy is coursing through your veins, you'd be a good deal more durable, not less.

[MrNobody]

i'd be tempted to houserule the save to a will save. It fixes this issue and, in my opinion, just makes a whole lot more sense

Moving the save to Will could be a good idea, but i don't think i'll raise the DC that much (like Mr Adventurer suggested). The DC for the base creature is 25, i'll advance it by 6-8 HDs (with a +3 or +4 to the DC) and since the Sentry Ooze template gives the ooze an Int score and feats maybe i'll go with a Ability Focus to raise the DC to 30 -31. By the way this will be only a minor encounter so it doesn't need to be THAT deadly, just a waste of resources if not properly handled.

Any other suggestions or ideas, anyone?

[Deophaun]

The problem with your approach is that you're taking something that's mechanically concrete, and you're throwing it to the whims of DM fiat. Based on that, I say your RAI interpretation is bunk.

[MrNobody]

The problem with your approach is that you're taking something that's mechanically concrete, and you're throwing it to the whims of DM fiat. Based on that, I say your RAI interpretation is bunk.

I think i'm not throwing anything anywhere: i feel that the rules as they are written don't work as they are intended to, and that's why i asked for a RAI advice while perfectly knowing the RAW application.
Mechanically the rules might work smoothly but if you put them together with the fluff something seems odd, and looking at kaffalidjmah's and Crake's replies i'm not the only one that have noticed it.
Nevertheless, your comment and expecially the one from Necroticplague have shown me another point of view.

I'm making up my mind but still uncertain: any other comment is welcome.

[kaffalidjmah]

Actually I'm fairly certain that if you're animated by the foul powers of undeath and unholy energy is coursing through your veins, you'd be a good deal more durable, not less.

of course you d12 instead of every other HD, but the fortitude is different. If you want to hit a rock (immobile) you can very easy. Is also easy assume that the rock have 0 or "-" as dex value. And so a "-" on constitution mean an equivalent 0 on constitution. So, -5 to relevant fortitude save.

Again, this is my homebrew, to answer the opening topic, the idea of a will save instead of fortitude have much more sense

[danzibr]

Hmm. That's interesting.

So the ooze is doing something *physical* to things which robs their magic.

If I were DM, I'd play it by RAW.

[Deophaun]

Mechanically the rules might work smoothly but if you put them together with the fluff something seems odd to me.
I fixed your statement, and that is the crux of the matter. There is nothing about the fluff of the ooze that requires the effect to work equally well on living and undead targets. You are, after all, dealing with magic, and last I checked, magic wasn't known for being consistent or logical (that would actually make it science, not magic). So, this interpretation is entirely your personal construct, which means we are no longer operating under the rules, but under fiat.

[Urpriest]

Hmm. That's interesting.

So the ooze is doing something *physical* to things which robs their magic.

If I were DM, I'd play it by RAW.

This. It's an ooze, its attacks fluffwise should lean towards the biological. Perhaps it steals magic from the magic center of the brain, or the "life force" that powers arcane casting.

[Kingsnake]

If you want to hit a rock (immobile) you can very easy. Is also easy assume that the rock have 0 or "-" as dex value. And so a "-" on constitution mean an equivalent 0 on constitution. So, -5 to relevant fortitude save.
Actually, you've highlighted the one reason giving a nonexistent score a penalty doesn't make sense. A rock does not have a dexterity bonus; it can't dodge out of the way. But it also has no penalty; it can't attempt to dodge out of the way and instead stumble into it. A creature with a dexterity of zero can't move; this is true. But that doesn't mean a creature that can't move automatically has dexterity of zero.

[Karl Aegis]

I think you're over-thinking this. The Arcane Ooze has a -13 to hide and cannot detect anything outside of 60 feet. You'll pretty much need DM Fiat for the ability to be relevant at all.

[Inevitability]

I think you're over-thinking this. The Arcane Ooze has a -13 to hide and cannot detect anything outside of 60 feet. You'll pretty much need DM Fiat for the ability to be relevant at all.

Traps, lots of them. Shifting walls, pit traps with the ooze in them, ooze-launching catapults... The possibilities are endless.

[Sliver]

Actually, you've highlighted the one reason giving a nonexistent score a penalty doesn't make sense. A rock does not have a dexterity bonus; it can't dodge out of the way. But it also has no penalty; it can't attempt to dodge out of the way and instead stumble into it. A creature with a dexterity of zero can't move; this is true. But that doesn't mean a creature that can't move automatically has dexterity of zero.

Actually, the rock doesn't have "-" as dex, it has 0.


An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC.

It's a pointless point to argue, since the rules are clear on the subject and it is being acknowledged as a houserule.

[MrNobody]

This. It's an ooze, its attacks fluffwise should lean towards the biological. Perhaps it steals magic from the magic center of the brain, or the "life force" that powers arcane casting.

This interpretation is not bad at all, at least it explains why an effect that should be (to me) related to a Will save has a Fortitude save instead.

It's strange but... it might work! My party is adventuring in Xen'drik, after all: strange things are supposed to happen!
At this point maybe i'll leave things as they are and have the wizard keep all its spells, as RAW requires.

[Psyren]

So i ask you: it would be forceful to have the undead wizard being affected by Spell siphon like anyone else or it would be a legitimate RAI interpretation?

To be blunt, no to both RAW and RAI. You can houserule this ooze to be special but that is what it is - a houserule, not an interpretation. Adjusting the ooze in this way should furthermore probably bump its CR up a notch.

Basically you have to accept the fact that being undead is a very powerful defense and this is the reason why allowing that type for PCs needs to be considered very carefully ahead of time. Allowing this defense and then negating its benefits should be avoided or solidly justified.

[Segev]

To be blunt, no to both RAW and RAI. You can houserule this ooze to be special but that is what it is - a houserule, not an interpretation. Adjusting the ooze in this way should furthermore probably bump its CR up a notch.

Basically you have to accept the fact that being undead is a very powerful defense and this is the reason why allowing that type for PCs needs to be considered very carefully ahead of time. Allowing this defense and then negating its benefits should be avoided or solidly justified.

Normally, I'd agree, but I think this is more a case where game design was performed with intent to hit a weak point and has backfired, rather than there being a strong fluff reason to have the two things interact this way.

i.e., I suspect the ooze uses a Fort save not because it was fluff-wise "right," but because spellcasters, the targets of this effect, usually have weak fort saves, and the designer thought he was being clever.

Undead have their immunity to (most) fort save effects because it's assumed that they're things like poison or the like, which impact biological functions undead no longer have (and thus would make no sense to be vulnerable to).

The ooze's fluff ability is to magically siphon magic from spells when they're cast near it. This has nothing to do with the biology of the spellcaster.

House-ruling it to a will save and (possibly) bumping up the DC is actually making it more in line with the kind of thing the fluff would support, since control of magical energies is usually a matter of will in the first place.

The "undeath is a powerful protection, and you shouldn't just invalidate it" argument is meritorious, but not here. It's not like the DM is planning to do it "because I want a poison to affect him, since if it doesn't the encounter is too weak." He's looking at it because "it doesn't make sense for this immunity to interact this way with this effect, and it makes the encounter too weak."

[Psyren]

Normally, I'd agree, but I think this is more a case where game design was performed with intent to hit a weak point and has backfired, rather than there being a strong fluff reason to have the two things interact this way.

i.e., I suspect the ooze uses a Fort save not because it was fluff-wise "right," but because spellcasters, the targets of this effect, usually have weak fort saves, and the designer thought he was being clever.

Agreed - but undead spellcasters themselves are specifically designed to avoid this weakness. And thus the designers advise against allowing undead PCs in the first place, for most campaigns.

And furthermore, you don't know that the ability has "nothing to do with the spellcaster's biology." If it was just targeting "arcane energy," why wouldn't it also drain charges from wands or staves? Why doesn't it stop you from using scrolls or other items? Why don't they dispel any free-standing spells that happen to be active within the drain area, like Light or Silence? Why don't they affect SLAs? Why don't they depower elementals or constructs? If it worked the way you thought it did, it would be much more general, like an antimagic field or catapsi, rather than the very limited effect we see here (spells only.) So there is actually more evidence for it being intended to work only on a living spellcaster.

[Segev]

The exact wording of the ooze's ability says it does it to "arcane spell energy." Why it doesn't affect items (wands, staves, scrolls) is a good question, but it says absolutely nothing about biology.

Your point about the designers intending undead casters to be immune to "this kind of ability" doesn't quite hold, because it presumes that the "kind" of ability the ooze exerts is chosen as a fortitude save because it DOES affect biology. You're presuming the conclusion. Yes, I agree, if the ooze's ability grants a fort save because it is, fluff-wise, meant to be impacting biology, the undead caster should be immune, fluff-wise. If, on the other hand, the ooze's ability is a fort save because the designer wanted to pick on the weak save of arcane spellcasters, then it does not make sense that undead arcane spellcasters should be immune, fluff-wise, to this power.

We obviously have to guess at the reason why a fortitude save was chosen if we want to determine RAI.

I think we agree on the RAW: the undead spellcaster is immune.

But this is a question on RAI and (by some implication) game balance. I can see plenty of RAI-based argument for making it a Will save, instead.

[Psyren]

The exact wording of the ooze's ability says it does it to "arcane spell energy." Why it doesn't affect items (wands, staves, scrolls) is a good question, but it says absolutely nothing about biology.

No, but it does affect "spellcasters," i.e. creatures. And with both of the non-living creatures exempt by RAW, the burden is on you to prove that these were intended to be affected anyway, since other forms of arcane spell energy are not. It is not persuasive that this thing can roll over a free-standing spell or wand, do nothing to it, yet was nevertheless somehow intended to affect non-living things.



But this is a question on RAI and (by some implication) game balance. I can see plenty of RAI-based argument for making it a Will save, instead.

The "game balance" argument doesn't hold water either - game balance assumes the PCs are not undead, or at the very least it assumes that DMs who allow undead PCs are prepared to accept the consequences of that variant choice.

[Zirconia]

I wonder the same kind of thing about Crushing Grip (Players Handbook 2), a Fort save Evocation spell that generates a "band of energy" which first applies penalties, then paralyzes the foe. Why would a zombie be immune to a band of energy constricting him, while the same guy before he dies would not?

[Necroticplague]

If we want to mention to talk the RAI of undead losing spell slots, I'd like to point out a commonality to a similar situation: negative levels. Gaining a negative level causes one to lose a spell slot. Now, the default description of negative levels usually appears to be related to damaging the soul (holy and similar cause conflicts with the soul, Soul Eater inflicts negative levels). However, undead are immune to this damage, even though they have souls (as per magic jar, intelligent undead have or are souls). Therefore, there souls must be configured differently in order to be immune to such damage. In addition, the fact that you lose spell slots when you take negative levels indicates that your spell slots are in some way tied to your soul. Thus, the undead creature, in posession of an unusual soul, must attach its spells to its soul in a different manner (otherwise they could still lose them by having negative levels inflicted on them). Its possible that this same way the can keep hold on spell slots while targeted by an enervation or while chilling in a negative-energy dominant field lets them keep hold of them while this ooze is around.