AMF and possesion

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm tinkering with a character concept, but in doing so I stumbled upon this little nugget. What happens to the possessing creature, and its influence, when a possessed creature enters an antimagic field?

[BobVosh]

If it is a SU, SP, or simply a spell then it should end. If it is EX than it stays, while we ponder where you found an EX possession.

[PhoenixRivers]

Well, what happens to incorporeal creatures in an AMF? Every form of possession I know of relies on being incorporeal first.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If it is a SU, SP, or simply a spell then it should end. If it is EX than it stays, while we ponder where you found an EX possession.

Why should it end? No other SU or SP or even spell ends simply by coming into contact with an AMF

Well, what happens to incorporeal creatures in an AMF? Every form of possession I know of relies on being incorporeal first.

Incorporeals blink out in an AMF but once the possessing creature takes possession it's no longer incorporeal but a part of the victim (FC1, pg 22)

[aboyd]

Why should it end? No other SU or SP or even spell ends simply by coming into contact with an AMF

I cannot tell if you just have it wrong, or if you're being very nuanced. From the spell description:

The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

That's the SU & SP being trounced by the anti-magic, right there.

However, if you were trying to argue semantics with the OP, then fine, there is a semantic distinction. Anti-magic doesn't actually end most spells, instead, it suppresses the effect for the duration of the interaction.

Regardless, that doesn't detract from BobVosh's point -- these effects should "wink out" in the presence of anti-magic.

Every form of possession I know of relies on being incorporeal first.

Can't items possess you? Like a cursed item? That would be corporeal.

[PhoenixRivers]

Usually, if it's external to you, it's referred to as Domination.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm just being nuanced, and I am the OP. AMF suppresses SU, SP, and spell effects in its area, it doesn't end them. IE: you walk into an AMF with a bull's strength spell in effect on your person. Then you walk back out. While you were in the field it didn't work, but it resumed its normal effect when you left the field. The duration is unaffected by AMF. What I don't know is will walking into an AMF make it impossible for the possessing creature to leave its host's body? Render it unable to telepathically comunicate with the victim? etc...

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm just being nuanced, and I am the OP. AMF suppresses SU, SP, and spell effects in its area, it doesn't end them. IE: you walk into an AMF with a bull's strength spell in effect on your person. Then you walk back out. While you were in the field it didn't work, but it resumed its normal effect when you left the field. The duration is unaffected by AMF. What I don't know is will walking into an AMF make it impossible for the possessing creature to leave its host's body? Render it unable to telepathically comunicate with the victim? etc...

IIRC, incorporeal creatures wink out of existance entirely in an AMF.This means that when you leave the AMF, they're still stuck in it.

If it's an incorporeal, AMF will effectively end the possession, mostly due to incorporeal rules, as long as the possessed subject moves in the AMF.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're right about incorporeal creatures and AMF but a possessing creature stops being incorporeal when it takes a host, it becomes part of the victim. See Fiendish Codex 1 page 22.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think I'm starting to get an idea now though, If the possession is suppressed by the amf, the possessor can't influence the possessed, but it also can't leave or it'll be winked out until the amf goes away....... hmm.....

[PhoenixRivers]

Does it actually state that the creature ceases to be incorporeal (i.e. loses the incorporeal subtype), or does it just say it becomes a part of the victim?

[Kelb_Panthera]

doesn't have to. In becoming part of the host, the possessor ceases to be a seperate creature and no longer has its own type or subtype. It effectively becomes a feature of the possessed that is out of that character's control.

[PhoenixRivers]

doesn't have to. In becoming part of the host, the possessor ceases to be a seperate creature and no longer has its own type or subtype. It effectively becomes a feature of the possessed that is out of that character's control.

Incorrect. If it has its own thought process, it is it's own creature. If the Incorporeal subtype isn't removed, and what you have stated above isn't explicitly stated in the entry, then it is part of the creature. An incorporeal part of the creature. That is affected the same as any other incorporeal effect.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Incorrect. If it has its own thought process, it is it's own creature. If the Incorporeal subtype isn't removed, and what you have stated above isn't explicitly stated in the entry, then it is part of the creature. An incorporeal part of the creature. That is affected the same as any other incorporeal effect.

So an intelligent item is a construct then? How about the seperate minds of a synad? or the two independent creatures of a symbiotic creature? the myriad rats of a rat swarm? seperate minds do not necessarily make seperate creatures. Besides, the rules don't explicitly state that the creature gains the inorporeal subtype, just that they become incorporeal. It's rather counter-intuitive to even think that an incorporeal creature might not have the incorporeal subtype, but by your own logic, that is "if the rules don't explicitly state it, then it's not true," a would be possessor is just such a creature.

[PhoenixRivers]

So an intelligent item is a construct then?

Provided it's been given the Construct trait via a RAW entry, yes.

Most of your examples discuss adding something to entries that was not there to begin with.

With incorporeal possessors, you are trying to remove something without RAW authorization.

Besides, the rules don't explicitly state that the creature gains the inorporeal subtype, just that they become incorporeal. It's rather counter-intuitive to even think that an incorporeal creature might not have the incorporeal subtype, but by your own logic, that is "if the rules don't explicitly state it, then it's not true," a would be possessor is just such a creature.

Actually, the rules do state that. Just as they state that an outsider gains the "Native" subtype when on its own plane.

These are outlined in the SRD.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, then what does RAW have to say about only part of a creature having a subtype? That sounds more than a little strange to me. For that matter, how do you explain something being part of a creature and being its own creature at the same time? Also, what's an incorporeal effect? I don't think I've ever read about one of those.

[PhoenixRivers]

Okay, then what does RAW have to say about only part of a creature having a subtype? That sounds more than a little strange to me. For that matter, how do you explain something being part of a creature and being its own creature at the same time? Also, what's an incorporeal effect? I don't think I've ever read about one of those.

Oh, that's simple. They state that an incorporeal creature has the incorporeal subtype. Then they state that such a creature becomes part of the other, without removing that subtype. Poof. There you go.

As for the other? You have 2 independant minds. 1 possesses a body controlled by the other, and usurps control. They are two seperate entities, even if merged, with different thoughts. They react differently under different circumstances.

Swarms? Symbiotes? The others you listed? Don't choose to seperate. They can't. This can.

If you fight a Fighter that is possessed by a ghost, and you beat the encounter, what do you get in terms of experience?

XP for the Fighter, and XP for the Ghost. Because even though the ghost can merge, it is still its own creature. If you'd care to prove that wrong, please cite explicit text showing otherwise.

[Kelb_Panthera]

actually the symbiote actually comes with an ex ability "separate" yet IIRC you can't target one or the other of the two creatures separately unless they do separate.

As for your fighter/ghost example, you only get experience for both if the ghost is actively contributing to the encounter. If it's only giving a small boost to the fighter without performing any actions, then the encounter maybe gets a +1 bump on its cr. The mage back in town that makes a scroll/potion of invisibility that gets used by the rogue doesn't get xp, neither does the spy that observes the fight between the party and another enemy. Neither do they give xp. Simply being present, or giving a minor contribution doesn't make a creature/character part of the encounter. Better example, if a spellcaster summons a ghost, and has it possess him, does the ghost get counted toward the party's xp?

[PhoenixRivers]

actually the symbiote actually comes with an ex ability "separate" yet IIRC you can't target one or the other of the two creatures separately unless they do separate.

As for your fighter/ghost example, you only get experience for both if the ghost is actively contributing to the encounter. If it's only giving a small boost to the fighter without performing any actions, then the encounter maybe gets a +1 bump on its cr. The mage back in town that makes a scroll/potion of invisibility that gets used by the rogue doesn't get xp, neither does the spy that observes the fight between the party and another enemy. Neither do they give xp. Simply being present, or giving a minor contribution doesn't make a creature/character part of the encounter. Better example, if a spellcaster summons a ghost, and has it possess him, does the ghost get counted toward the party's xp?

RAW states that summoned creatures do not add to CR. That's explicit.

It also states that existing hostile characters do contribute to CR. They do so even if destroyed in the first round, with no contribution (example: party detects 2 vampires, catching them by surprise. Wizard Disintigrates one. Now, that vampire didn't effectively contribute to the difficulty of the encounter. Still, it grants XP, because it was there, and it was a potential combatant.) If you wish to alter that, it's fine. It's also houseruling.

If you want to tell us how you plan to houserule this, fine. That's ok. If you want how it actually works, then please don't try to houserule it away when you're told.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not trying to houserule anything, at least not yet. Let's go back to the idea that the possessing creature is somehow an incoproreal part of the host (I don't really buy that, but I'd like keep from going any further from my original point.) It winks out of existence when the host moves into the AMF. What keeps it from winking back in when the host leaves the AMF?

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm not trying to houserule anything, at least not yet. Let's go back to the idea that the possessing creature is somehow an incoproreal part of the host (I don't really buy that, but I'd like keep from going any further from my original point.) It winks out of existence when the host moves into the AMF. What keeps it from winking back in when the host leaves the AMF?

Well, the fact that it didn't leave the AMF. It's still back where it winked out. Incorporeal AMF interaction states that it reappears in the same place it winked out, when the AMF is gone. So, they are seperate, for the same reason that someone who teleports out of a grapple is no longer grappled. The two are no longer together.

In other words, that incorporeal doesn't move when "winked out". It returns in the exact same place it was when it winked out. Which is no longer where the host is, in all likelihood.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So winking out of existence keeps it from moving with the rest of the body now? If AMF is that effective at taking out possessions I'd think something would've been said before now. Stupid WotC not thinking about something like this. This just can't be right, because if it works that way, then a permanent AMF could effectively erase fiends from existence. That simply can't be something that was intended.

[PhoenixRivers]

So winking out of existence keeps it from moving with the rest of the body now? If AMF is that effective at taking out possessions I'd think something would've been said before now. Stupid WotC not thinking about something like this. This just can't be right, because if it works that way, then a permanent AMF could effectively erase fiends from existence. That simply can't be something that was intended.

It'd be an interesting plot piece.

All powerful fiend possesses mortal to gain form, and wreaks havoc. Powerful enchantments placed upon an item nullify magic. They get it close, and the evil fiend's power is contained...

A shrine is erected around the device, forever entombing the fiend... Unless it were to be removed, in which case the fiend would be unleashed to cause untold destruction once again.

[Kelb_Panthera]

OH HO!!!! I just reread AMF's description. It says summoned creatures and incorporeal undead wink out. Not incorporeal creatures in general.

The possession is still suspended, because it's a su, but the possessing creature is only inconvenienced...... this actually hurts my concept though

[PhoenixRivers]

OH HO!!!! I just reread AMF's description. It says summoned creatures and incorporeal undead wink out. Not incorporeal creatures in general.

If you want to go incredibly technical. However, as undead are the only incorporeals in the core rules, it's reasonable (read: most DM's that ascribe to this theory) to extend it to any incorporeal.

But yes, by drowning to heal logic, you're right. However, the creature's possession ability, were it not (EX), would be suppressed, ripping it out of the body.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That may be reasonable, but it's not raw. Unfortunately this little revelation actually hurts my character concept

[PhoenixRivers]

That may be reasonable, but it's not raw. Unfortunately this little revelation actually hurts my character concept

What is RAW is that the creature's possession is suppressed, meaning any effects of it end. Including your merging.

And if you're trying to make this fly past a DM, "reasonable" carries a lot of weight. No sane DM in his right mind will allow an incorporeal creature in an AMF.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is it me or did we just ninja each other with our edits?

[PhoenixRivers]

Is it me or did we just ninja each other with our edits?

Yep. That we did.

[Kelb_Panthera]

suppressed and ended aren't the same thing. The way I see it is that the possessing creature is stuck sitting inside its host grumbling, unheard, about how it can't do anything until this stupid mortal gets away from the AMF.