Post/Author/DateTime	Post
smerwin29 06-23-07, 11:28 AM	Without turning this into a big rule discussion, with all the usual suspects jumping in with their opinions, can I get an answer to a situational question regarding delay death? I know the spell is an immediate action, which can be cast at any time. However, I have seen the spell used on someone who is at 3 hit points, and then gets hit for 42 points of damage in one swing. If the spell is cast after the hit is made, is the recipient not already dead? Wouldn't it have to be cast before the swing takes place? Or is an immediate action so immediate that it can take affect between the striking of the blow and the losing of the hit points? And in that case, could a PC not cast delay death on himself, even if he were the one with 3 hit points, getting hit for 42 point of damage in one blow? What I am looking for is an "official" reference (Sage Advice, FAQ) if one has been made. Long-winded, rules-lawyer debates can go in another thread, if you please. Thanks, Shawn
Samwise 06-23-07, 07:25 PM	What I am looking for is an "official" reference (Sage Advice, FAQ) if one has been made. Long-winded, rules-lawyer debates can go in another thread, if you please. Thanks, Shawn Searching the FAQ, Sage Advice Online, and Ask Wizards archives, I found nothing relating to Delay Death, or anything about Immediate actions that directly relates to this question.
King Kashue 06-23-07, 08:20 PM	You don't need an FAQ entry to read the SpC section on immediate actions. :D Unless otherwise stated, actions occur in normal order (common out of order actions being Readied actions and AoOs, both of which occur before the action that triggers them). If you declare you're casting delay death after someone drops to -35, then that's when you've cast it. If you declare before the attack, then that's when you cast it.
smerwin29 06-23-07, 08:29 PM	OK, so then if you come upon someone who has been dead for 3 days, you can cast delay death on them and heal them back to life? Or do you have to cast it immediately when the person dies?
Howie23 06-23-07, 09:19 PM	OK, so then if you come upon someone who has been dead for 3 days, you can cast delay death on them and heal them back to life? Or do you have to cast it immediately when the person dies? I thought you didn't want a rules debate? :) That question cannot be answered without starting a rules debate. David
Southernskies 06-23-07, 11:10 PM	Use the normal situation for most games (card games, most RPGs, most board games) of "FIFO": First In, First Out Things like counterspelling muddle it up a bit more, but still (generally) follows that process.
Jay_Ibero_911 06-23-07, 11:18 PM	Use the normal situation for most games (card games, most RPGs, most board games) of "FIFO": First In, First Out Things like counterspelling muddle it up a bit more, but still (generally) follows that process. Isn't it normally "First in, LAST out"? Or is that just in MtG?
King Kashue 06-24-07, 05:07 AM	OK, so then if you come upon someone who has been dead for 3 days, you can cast delay death on them and heal them back to life? Or do you have to cast it immediately when the person dies? I thought you didn't want a rules debate? :) That question cannot be answered without starting a rules debate. David Don't need to even bother with a debate, again, it's actually explicit (why this spell confuses people, I still don't understand). :D Look at the spell description in itself. "Target: One Creature." There is actually an official definition for that term. Creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. (PHB p. 306) You need to be a living character to be a valid target of the spell.
copper_wyrmling 06-24-07, 06:43 AM	I agree with King Kashue (i.e. you can't cast delay death after the killing attack has been resolved, you need to cast it before the swing takes place). As far as I know, this has not been explicitly stated in any official rules source.
smerwin29 06-24-07, 09:14 AM	OK, I got what I needed. Thanks. Shawn
King Kashue 06-24-07, 03:39 PM	As far as I know, this has not been explicitly stated in any official rules source. Other than the SpC and PHB, of course ;)
Dr.Cornelius 06-25-07, 03:28 AM	OK - Delay Death only affects currently living creatures, i.e. at -9 or more HP at the time the spell takes effect. Having read the relevant PHB v3.5 and SpC sections, the precise timing is still a little confusing. Consider this action sequence: BBEG's Turn A) BBEG declares an attack targeting Tordek. B) BBEG makes an attack roll and determines if the attack is successful. C) BBEG rolls damage. D) Damage is applied to Tordek. E) Tordek's status is determined: good order, disabled, unconscious or dead. At which points in the action sequence can a character cast Delay Death effectively? For example, can an immediate spell be cast bewtween B & C? What about between D & E? Close Wounds is a similar Immediate spell. Does the Close Wounds text shed any light on this issue? Is it significant that Close Wounds and Delay Death use a different text template, or is the Close Wounds text simply a reminder of how the timing mechanic works? Close Wounds ... If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage...
CdrcJsn 06-25-07, 03:52 AM	Consider this action sequence: BBEG's Turn A) BBEG declares an attack targeting Tordek. B) BBEG makes an attack roll and determines if the attack is successful. C) BBEG rolls damage. D) Damage is applied to Tordek. E) Tordek's status is determined: good order, disabled, unconscious or dead. At which points in the action sequence can a character cast Delay Death effectively? For example, can an immediate spell be cast bewtween B & C? What about between D & E? This was discussed a few months ago with several judges for a Pale convention and most agreed that it's between A and B. There's nothing in the rules that separate damage from an attack, so the delay death would come in too late if the roll (and subsequent damage) is already made. This means that the caster would have to actually think about when to cast Delay Death rather than using it as a reaction to a killing blow. Close Wounds is a similar Immediate spell. Does the Close Wounds text shed any light on this issue? Is it significant that Close Wounds and Delay Death use a different text template, or is the Close Wounds text simply a reminder of how the timing mechanic works? Close Wounds is an exception to the rule due to specific wording that makes it apply retroactively if needed. Delay Death has no such exception, so has to follow regular rules of combat order. Best to clarify with your table judge though, since I'm sure this one will get huge table variance.
Dr.Cornelius 06-25-07, 04:07 AM	Thanks for the clarification. On a related note, can a character cast close wounds on himself immediately after taking damage that would make him unconscious or dead? i.e. can a character cast close wounds on himself between step D & E?
_metz_ 06-25-07, 07:08 AM	Thanks for the clarification. On a related note, can a character cast close wounds on himself immediately after taking damage that would make him unconscious or dead? i.e. can a character cast close wounds on himself between step D & E? Pretty sure you have to be conscious to do an immediate action, AS SOON as you are reduced to 0 or less Hit points you are unconscious (except for die hard) it is not a separate phase unless I am missing something. so I would say not. As to KNOW you were under 0 hitpoints = unconcious, it is a self defeating paradox as you cannot do it... E must have happened for you to realise it. (Characters cannot meta game numbers remember) But there could as always be TV :D
amnuxoll 06-25-07, 11:46 AM	I draw the most comfort from Close Wounds which sets a precedent by explicitly stating that the spell goes into effect before the target dies. Someone who cares more than I do should look that spell up and post the text here. ;)
Mattastrophic 06-25-07, 12:32 PM	I myself am a big fan of running Delay Death very similarly to Close Wounds... ...If you cast this spell immediately after the subject [dies], it effectively prevents the [death]... Quick, easy, argument-free. -Matt
control freak 06-25-07, 02:37 PM	I agree with matt here as running it any other way seems to take away from the fact its an immediate action with range we also have a cleric with die hard and i was curious about how it worked because he says he stays up as long as he is alive! which would be amazeing but i dont think it works that way
Dr.Cornelius 06-25-07, 02:38 PM	I myself am a big fan of running Delay Death very similarly to Close Wounds... ...If you cast this spell immediately after the subject [dies], it effectively prevents the [death]...This is the most player-friendly interpretation. It implies that there is an interrupt window after damage is dealt but before the character's status is changed. Note that this interpretation would allow a character to cast Delay Death or Close Wounds to save himself. I guess Delay Death is another situation where the best policy is to get a ruling from the DM prior to the start of play.
Britt 06-25-07, 02:57 PM	Most player friendly isn't always the best answer, though. When you have something that is already considered by a decent number of people to be inappropriate, giving it the most powerful interpretation is probably not the best approach. I usually allow the spell to be cast between B & C, but prefer its limitation to between A & B, as BCDE really all happen at the same instant. Even though I dislike the spell, restricting it to before A seems unreasonable.
Mattastrophic 06-25-07, 03:02 PM	we also have a cleric with die hard and i was curious about how it worked because he says he stays up as long as he is alive! which would be amazeing but i dont think it works that way If you take a look at Diehard, you'll see that the feat only keeps him awake between -1 and -9. As soon as he hits -10, he falls down. -Matt
Britt 06-25-07, 03:10 PM	If you take a look at Diehard, you'll see that the feat only keeps him awake between -1 and -9. As soon as he hits -10, he falls down. -Matt Or if he has one point of nonlethal damage.
Frumpkis 06-25-07, 05:13 PM	I agree that BCDE occur more or less simultaneously. I personally would allow Delay Death to be cast between A & B (casting it before A is of course the safest bet). I myself am a big fan of running Delay Death very similarly to Close Wounds... ...If you cast this spell immediately after the subject [dies], it effectively prevents the [death]... Quick, easy, argument-free. -Matt I'm of the view that the text between Close Wounds and Delay Death is different for a reason. Close Wounds only heals you for a finite amount of hit points. Delay Death, for all intents and purposes, allows a person to take an infinite amount of damage without dying - provided of course you can heal it all back up before the Delay Death runs out. Based on this, Delay Death is obviously the superior spell. So why would any cleric ever bother with prepping Close Wounds? Because Close Wounds has, specifically written into the text, the ability to be cast after damage has been dealt. That is the advantage of Close Wounds, and is what makes the one spell unique from the other (thus making both spells useful and valuable to take).
Mattastrophic 06-25-07, 06:33 PM	So why would any cleric ever bother with prepping Close Wounds? Maybe because it's a second-level spell, while Delay Death is 4th? -Matt
Eric Anondson 06-25-07, 09:36 PM	I'm of the view that the text between Close Wounds and Delay Death is different for a reason.I concur.
KarmaInferno 06-25-07, 10:43 PM	You want to REALLY annoy a DM? Chained Delay Death. <ducks and runs> -karma
bitznarf 06-25-07, 10:47 PM	Thats a pretty high level slot, lol.
KarmaInferno 06-25-07, 10:51 PM	Yah, it was a lot more feasible with Divine Metamagic. Then again, that's one of the reasons why DMM was banned, right? My cleric still preps one if there's an expectation of large scale battle in an adventure, though, 7th level slot or no. -karma
Gwumph 06-26-07, 12:57 AM	For me the biggest thing is it is an immidiate action. Just as in RL someone gets shot in the heart/head they are dead. but they are still alive for the milli-second after it happens. So I would say it applies between D - E, between damage is rolled and damage is applied. I.e. Cleric see's the BBEG axe swing through the air and connect (hit roll) with a resounding crunch (damage rolls) on his dwarven friend. Cleric blinks (delay death) as the dwarf fall back cleaved in two (damage taken)
King Kashue 06-26-07, 01:01 AM	For me the biggest thing is it is an immidiate action. Just as in RL someone gets shot in the heart/head they are dead. but they are still alive for the milli-second after it happens. So I would say it applies between D - E, between damage is rolled and damage is applied. I.e. Cleric see's the BBEG axe swing through the air and connect (hit roll) with a resounding crunch (damage rolls) on his dwarven friend. Cleric blinks (delay death) as the dwarf fall back cleaved in two (damage taken) The problem is that there is nothing in the rules to suggest that there actually is even a split instant in between D and E. Heck "E" is a matter of player knowledge, the damage was 'done' in step D. Everything in the rules themselves say that "steps" B-E are nothing more than rules organization and that they are actually one event in-game.
Gwumph 06-26-07, 02:17 AM	True King But there are several examples given in various books of where a immediate spell interupts actions. It has been argued that since there is no "action" delay between the hit and the damage that you must cast delay death before the swing. But that argue takes away what immediate spells do. Immediate spells interupt actions, that is what they do and that is why they are immediate spells and not swift spells. So although the Hit --- Damage taken is a single action, an immediate spell interupts that action, thats how they work.
King Kashue 06-26-07, 03:24 AM	True King But there are several examples given in various books of where a immediate spell interupts actions. And in every case they explicitly allow such a use. It has been argued that since there is no "action" delay between the hit and the damage that you must cast delay death before the swing. But that argue takes away what immediate spells do. Immediate spells interupt actions, that is what they do and that is why they are immediate spells and not swift spells. So although the Hit --- Damage taken is a single action, an immediate spell interupts that action, thats how they work. No, that isn't how they work. And no, that isn't the difference between immediate and swift. The difference between immediate and swift is that immediate actions can be used at any time (i.e., when it is not your turn), whereas swift actions can only be used on your turn. In fact, if you use an immediate action on your turn, it counts as your one swift action for the round. The rules actually say nothing at all about immediate actions interrupting actions, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. For reference, here is the SpC (the most recent rules source) text on immediate and swift actions: Some spells in this book have a casting time of “1 swift action” or “1 immediate action.” These action types, not described in the core rulebooks, are defined and explained below. Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Casting a quickened spell is a swift action (instead of a free action, as stated in the Quicken Spell feat description in the Player’s Handbook). Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Immediate Action: Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it’s not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action (instead of a free action, as stated in the spell description in the Player’s Handbook), since the spell can be cast at any time. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn. You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed. (SpC p. 4) That's it. That's the entire text. Nothing that allows retroactive casting, reactive casting, or interrupting anything. Those abilities are specific to the spells that explicitly allow them.
Gwumph 06-26-07, 05:59 AM	I guess it's down to how you define "at any time" For me the immediate spells that are explicit in interrupting actions go to show that immediate spells can do that. Again for me the "at any time" is the big one. Not before an action is taken, not after an action is taken, but "at any time".
Howie23 06-26-07, 01:23 PM	I guess it's down to how you define "at any time" For me the immediate spells that are explicit in interrupting actions go to show that immediate spells can do that. Again for me the "at any time" is the big one. Not before an action is taken, not after an action is taken, but "at any time". Any action has two characteristics. When it can be used, and how much time/effort it takes. When can an immediate action be used? "At any time" is followed by a clarifying phrase: "--even if it's not your turn." That is the importance of "At any time," and is what distinguishes immediate actions from swift actions. How much time and effort does it take? It takes about the same as a swift action, which is more than a free action. You've compared it implicitly to blinking. I'd suggest that blinking is a non-action. Examples of free actions, which take less time and effort than an immediate or swift action, include drawing an arrow or a spell component from a spell compont pouch. David
Mattastrophic 06-26-07, 01:40 PM	How much time and effort does it take? In the PHB, Quicken Spell tells us that it can be cast "in a moment's thought." Thus, with even less physical effort than blinking. Swift and Immediate spells are on the same level of effort and time. -Matt
Reylance 06-26-07, 01:55 PM	I think of Magic: the Gathering, with its "Damage on the stack" combat phase, and ability to respond before damage applies. You can put up a regeneration shield or damage-prevention effect after you know what the combat damage is, but before it resolves. I think of Close Wounds and Delay Death working like that. Of course, that's also the player-friendly interpretation.
smerwin29 06-26-07, 02:12 PM	To sum up, since I started the thread: Until there is an FAQ ruling or errata, ask your DM before assuming the spell works either way.
King Kashue 06-26-07, 06:02 PM	I guess it's down to how you define "at any time" For me the immediate spells that are explicit in interrupting actions go to show that immediate spells can do that. Again for me the "at any time" is the big one. Not before an action is taken, not after an action is taken, but "at any time". Except there is nothing at all that suggests that you can "split" someone else's action in two. In fact, everything in the rules says that no two actions ever happen simultaneously in terms of the rules mechanic, even though they happen simultaneously in the game world. In terms of the rules they happen in sequence (readied actions before, delay after, etc.) but they don't happen at the same time. So you can cast Delay death before the PC takes damage, or you can cast it after the PC takes damage, but by the RAW there is no time at all in between steps B-E. Here's the thing, folks have suggested casting in the moment between the axe hitting and the axe doing damage. Except there is no moment there, in the rules or in real life. You can cast it once the guy takes a swing at the PC, which is the moment between A and B. If it looks like the guy is about to attack your party member, you can cast it. Putting it after the actual hit means putting it after the PC is dropped to -30 (and is akin to casting it it after his torso has been hewn in two).
_metz_ 06-27-07, 12:32 AM	I guess it's down to how you define "at any time" For me the immediate spells that are explicit in interrupting actions go to show that immediate spells can do that. Again for me the "at any time" is the big one. Not before an action is taken, not after an action is taken, but "at any time". I like stopping to do stuff whilst the axe is only halfway through my mate... Sorry, but at any time seems to be a little open for abuse... I can see you being able tin interrupt other actions, but making microsecond decisions/acts seems to be pushing it. (unless a quick application of time stop is used...) I can see you casting it just prior to the hit, but not during it. Knowing how much damage they have taken is a metagaming concept, not a character one.
Majoru Oakheart 06-27-07, 04:08 PM	I can see you casting it just prior to the hit, but not during it. Knowing how much damage they have taken is a metagaming concept, not a character one. I've been in this debate on 3 different message boards now. No answer ever comes out of it. However, there are many examples in the books of feats and spells being able to react to metagame concepts. Swift actions say they can be done whenever you can do a free action, just only once a round. Immediate actions are the same as swift actions but can be done when it isn't your turn. I know there are some abilities(Trip being one) that say things like "As a free action, when you hit with a bite attack you can make a trip attempt". This makes it sound like you can do it right after hitting someone in the middle of the attack, thus interrupting your own action. Plus, there are a number of immediate action spells that say "this must be cast before the attack roll". If they are spelling out an exception like Close Wounds is, then normally spells can be cast AFTER the attack roll. Unfortunately, the power of a number of these spells HEAVILY depends on exactly when you can cast them.
CdrcJsn 06-27-07, 04:15 PM	Plus, there are a number of immediate action spells that say "this must be cast before the attack roll". If they are spelling out an exception like Close Wounds is, then normally spells can be cast AFTER the attack roll. Close Wounds has specific wording that allows it to be cast after damage is determined and have its effects apply retroactively. By your logic, this implies that the general rule is that you can't do that normally.
Majoru Oakheart 06-27-07, 04:21 PM	Close Wounds has specific wording that allows it to be cast after damage is determined and have its effects apply retroactively. By your logic, this implies that the general rule is that you can't do that normally. What I was getting at is either it is explaining that it is an exception or reminding you of the rule. I'm not sure which one it is anymore than anyone else. By the same token the spells that say that they must be cast before the attack roll are either reminding you of the general rule or spelling out an exception, which I'm not sure about either.
JamesMaissen 06-27-07, 04:34 PM	Except there is nothing at all that suggests that you can "split" someone else's action in two. Many actions can indeed be split. For example, movement is certainly one of them and many full round actions can also obviously be split (i.e. full attack actions). The question could come down to what can be split and what can't, but since some unquestionably can, it's not as clear which cannot. Merely being able to argue that some should not doesn't make the line clear, only where the grey can be extended to cover. Consider a person moving onto a pit trap and falling. Feather fall is *designed* to come into play here. Should it need to be cast prior to the movement that triggered it? The person could tumble, land on their feet and possibly still have more movement left in which to act. Likewise *they* may wish to cast feather fall themselves (or swift fly, etc) depending in what condition they find themself. Likewise AOOs can interupt movement actions as can readied actions. Trying to trip something that disolves weapons that touch it can certainly interupt the otherwise free, immediate, follow up attack from improved trip. One of the main things here are that if, when you are judging, you want to be very strict about Delay Death (or other actions) then you should kindly inform your players on this to make sure that they understand the current 'laws of physics' that their characters obstensibly have grown up with as part of their world. Regardless of how 'clear cut' or obfuscated things are, this will vary from table to table for the players themselves. You may be in a great minority (or even unique) amongst the judges that they've encountered in this fashion. The second, followup, to this is that if you are going to take this line, then you are going to need to allow players to have a clear opportunity to cast such spells. This can be difficult, especially in a loud convention room. Don't let your zealousness on enforcing a way that you believe the rules should flow extend into penalizing players for having trouble outside of their control. Realize that even if they are accepting this ruling that they might not have had to do so in the past, might not be used to it at all, and while the norm for you, it may not be how they are used to thinking. An example of this is that I believe that the extra attacks that PCs get via haste (as well as flurry, rapid shot, etc) need to occur amongst the other attacks in descending BAB order. That is if you are hasted you need to make the 'haste' extra attack before iteratives (or natural secondaries) rather than at the end of all of your attacks. This is something that is certainly not how most people have seen it played, however, so I make allowances for it. Thus I expect many people to do so 'wrongly' and I merely bring it up when I notice it and even afterwards only remind them. Its something that's been played one way to near exclusion, so I don't expect them to be able to adjust overnight. Other examples with practiced table variation would be who applies cover, prone and the like modifiers to AC/hitrolls or who rolls miss chances (and which is 'good' vs 'bad' when one does so). The first goals in all of these cases should be to represent clearly how things 'should' work, and then accomodate players getting used to your way of doing things. For many tables that they are at, the judge may not have a strong opinion that it be done a certain way which will re-inforce either the ambiguity of it or the prior way that is ingrained into them. -James
CdrcJsn 06-27-07, 04:38 PM	What I was getting at is either it is explaining that it is an exception or reminding you of the rule. I'm not sure which one it is anymore than anyone else. Can you cite some spells? I can't think of any that is a simple reminder of the rules. Whenever I see rules quoted for whatever reason, it's to give an exception or because the rules aren't in the same book (i.e. blink spells out the rules for etherealness because that's in the DMG and not the PHB).
King Kashue 06-27-07, 05:18 PM	Many actions can indeed be split. For example, movement is certainly one of them and many full round actions can also obviously be split (i.e. full attack actions). Except we're not talking about a full attack sequence, we're talking about one attack in that sequence. And movement generally cannot be split unless you have an ability that specifically allows it (e.g., spring attack) The question could come down to what can be split and what can't, but since some unquestionably can, it's not as clear which cannot. Merely being able to argue that some should not doesn't make the line clear, only where the grey can be extended to cover. Except that's not what's being argued, you're misrepresenting the situation. Nothing in the rules suggests that there is any time in between "steps" B-E. Everything in the rules suggests that is an indivisible moment. That is what is at issue here, not some nebulous argument about actions in general (and certainly not any claim regarding full round actions). Splitting an attack is the specific issue under discussion, and that is what should be discussed. Consider a person moving onto a pit trap and falling. Feather fall is *designed* to come into play here. Should it need to be cast prior to the movement that triggered it? False analogy. First, featherfall explicitly allows such a usage as you are describing, therefore it is not an example of a general rule. Second, falling down a pit trap is not analogous to "Steps B-E". Unless you're claiming that you instantaneously fall down the trap, it is not a valid analogy to confirming an attack roll and applying damage. Damage does not apply several seconds after an axe hits someone, it applies as soon as the axe whacks the PC. That is the issue. Steps B-E are rules steps, not actual steps in the game world, those are a single event. Likewise AOOs can interupt movement actions as can readied actions. And those are explicit exceptions to the general rule. Why do you keep bringing up explicit exceptions as examples? They're exceptions to the way the rules normally work. That means they're examples of the exact opposite of what you're claiming is the way things work. The second, followup, to this is that if you are going to take this line, then you are going to need to allow players to have a clear opportunity to cast such spells. They clearly do. The DM says "The BBEG is going to attack Tordek", at that moment, the cleric, seeing Tordek is bleeding heavily (i.e., recognizing he's very low in hit points) can make the decision to cast Delay death. He knows the BBEG has 4 attacks in the round, and he knows Tordek is about to bite it, he can make the decision to cast Delay Death. There's no chicanery, no obfuscation, no attempt to screw the players. The Cleric knows Tordek is likely going to bite it, and can make their decision accordingly. Once the dice are thrown and the DM says "Tordek you take 53 points of damage", then he's taken the damage, he's dead, and he's no longer a valid target of the spell. Don't let your zealousness on enforcing a way that you believe the rules should flow extend into penalizing players for having trouble outside of their control. Realize that even if they are accepting this ruling that they might not have had to do so in the past, might not be used to it at all, and while the norm for you, it may not be how they are used to thinking. Can I say, I absolutely love the fact that you have decided that I'm "zealous" about this to the point that I would intentionally go out of my way to penalize players over this issue. Seeing as I've said nothing of the sort, it's a grand assumption to make...Kudos sirrah :rolleyes: Just to provide you with some actual information about the way I judge, at any table I run that is high enough to have this spell, it's one of the things I explicitly mention before beginning play, and it's something that I reiterate in any situation where it might come up (i.e., if I'm declaring an attack on someone who has a chance to go down, I specifically ask "before I roll the attack, does anyone want to do anything?") However, don't let the way I actually do things interfere with your blanket admonitions...
Majoru Oakheart 06-27-07, 05:45 PM	Nothing in the rules suggests that there is any time in between "steps" B-E. Everything in the rules suggests that is an indivisible moment. What in the rules suggests it is indivisible? I've seen many, many abilities that let you interrupt an action in process but never a line in any book that says you can't. (if you want some examples: Trip as I mentioned above, Luck domains ability lets you reroll an attack roll after it's been rolled but before you figure out if it hits, you can interrupt someone's action with a ready action) Second, falling down a pit trap is not analogous to "Steps B-E". Unless you're claiming that you instantaneously fall down the trap, it is not a valid analogy to confirming an attack roll and applying damage. Damage does not apply several seconds after an axe hits someone, it applies as soon as the axe whacks the PC. That is the issue. Steps B-E are rules steps, not actual steps in the game world, those are a single event. Actually, an attack lasts at least a second or two, one has to wind up, swing, contact the person with the edge of the weapon, put enough strength into the blow to cut through the armor, cut through the skin, then flesh, then bone, then continue to cut through until leaving the other side and out again. Then the person's organs that were damaged stop working slowly, and he dies. All of which normally happens in at least 2 seconds. In the game we resolve it mechanically with a couple of die rolls. And those are explicit exceptions to the general rule. Why do you keep bringing up explicit exceptions as examples? They're exceptions to the way the rules normally work. That means they're examples of the exact opposite of what you're claiming is the way things work. Because, when there is no general rule written anywhere, and there are nothing but exceptions written in every book(without any of them saying they are exceptions), then you have to assume that all of the exceptions are instead just the rule.
JamesMaissen 06-27-07, 06:26 PM	However, don't let the way I actually do things interfere with your blanket admonitions... Um.. chill. If you took what I said as some 'attack' upon you, it wasn't the case. As to the rest, whatever. If this has become personal to you.. then ignore the rest of this as I don't want to have an arguement, rather I would care to have a discussion. If that's not the situation, then good day and I appologise for any bad feelings that may have been engendered. Movement can indeed be split.. by both the mover and others. In the case of the mover, they react to what occurs as they move. One does not need to lay out the entire path they will make for their movement. If you walk past a piece of cover you might now notice the hiding rogue (either by lack of distance penalty or now lack of something for it to hide behind) and then elect to move elsewhere with the remainder of your movement. Likewise opponents react as each step is being taken. What one cannot in general do is intersperce one's own standard action within a move action. But that's not what is being discussed. Nor was the case in the situations I laid out. You made the claim about not being able to interupt someone else's action. You can indeed do this. There are many cases where this can be done. Now I'm not saying that one can cast an immediate action spell inbetween a specific cause A and consequence B. But I *am* saying that many actions can indeed be subject to interuptions in the middle of those actions. Now many of them can be seen as comprising several 'smaller' steps.. but the line to draw here becomes subjective rather than atomic. Personally I see delay death as something one can react to in between 'X attacks Y' and before it's determined whether or not X hits Y. But this is separating the action just as much as between X hits Y and Y takes damage. Could 'X' upon, say spellcrafting the spell cast, elect to attack Z instead? Likewise does it need to be before the hit is determined or before the d20 for the hit is rolled? Many abilities are allowable between the die roll and the result of the die roll being declared (i.e. many rerolls). I, personally, find it somewhat subjective what should be allowable and what shouldn't. It doesn't seem to be an exact line to me. Perhaps there are more things that can be cited to make that more clear to me. Some judges don't care about these mechanics, while others are exacting with the way that they wish things to be done. If one has strong feelings on the issue then making them known and allowing players adjustment to them (as they might be very novel to how they're used to things working) is good form. Anyway, take care but please don't take offense, James
King Kashue 06-27-07, 07:20 PM	What in the rules suggests it is indivisible? I've seen many, many abilities that let you interrupt an action in process but never a line in any book that says you can't. I'll say it again, splitting steps B-E is not a matter of "interrupting an action", hitting and doing damage are the exact same event, you don't hit someone then a second later do the damage. The damage is part of the hit. The steps are rules conveniences, not a progression of in game events. And yes, there are abilities that let you interrupt, and they all explicitly state that's the case. Delay Death doesn't. (if you want some examples: Trip as I mentioned above, Luck domains ability lets you reroll an attack roll after it's been rolled but before you figure out if it hits, you can interrupt someone's action with a ready action) And they all explicitly state that's how they work, delay death doesn't...Why do people not seem to recognize this? Actually, an attack lasts at least a second or two, one has to wind up, swing, contact the person with the edge of the weapon, put enough strength into the blow to cut through the armor, cut through the skin, then flesh, then bone, then continue to cut through until leaving the other side and out again. Then the person's organs that were damaged stop working slowly, and he dies. All of which normally happens in at least 2 seconds. Really? You've timed someone getting struck with an axe? :rolleyes: Think about it this way. You've seen a baseball game, right? Splitting steps B-E is the same as splitting the moment of contact with the ball. Me whacking a baseball with the bat, an axe making contact with a person, those happen in the blink of an eye. The "wind up" the "swing" etc, that's the time in between the DM saying "The BBEG attacks Tordek" and "Tordek you take 53 points of damage". That's when Delay Death can be cast. Because, when there is no general rule written anywhere, and there are nothing but exceptions written in every book(without any of them saying they are exceptions), then you have to assume that all of the exceptions are instead just the rule. There are indeed general rules about when actions happen, they're in the PHB, a whole chapter full of them. And they are exceptions, and they are explicitly stated as such (as in the Close Wounds text), so your claim that they're not stated as exceptions is false.
King Kashue 06-27-07, 07:37 PM	Um.. chill. If you took what I said as some 'attack' upon you, it wasn't the case. As to the rest, whatever. If this has become personal to you.. then ignore the rest of this as I don't want to have an arguement, rather I would care to have a discussion. If that's not the situation, then good day and I appologise for any bad feelings that may have been engendered. Here's what you said: Don't let your zealousness on enforcing a way that you believe the rules should flow extend into penalizing players for having trouble outside of their control. You assumed I'm "zealous" and you assumed I'm going to allow this fault to unfairly penalize players. If you don't see how that is a personal statement, then you need to examine the potential ways in which people are going to take your words. If I say to you "don't let your racism show itself at the table, it might offend players", you'd almost certainly take offense, and you'd be right. Nothing in the conversation had even suggested a potentially negative effect on DMing, you were the one who took it there. I can entirely believe that you didn't intend to (and if that's what you're saying, then there's no continuing issue), but that's the content of the words. If you're intending making a general statement regarding judging, then make a general statement. However, you made a specific statement directly addressed to me, and I took it as such. Movement can indeed be split.. by both the mover and others. In the case of the mover, they react to what occurs as they move. One does not need to lay out the entire path they will make for their movement. If you walk past a piece of cover you might now notice the hiding rogue (either by lack of distance penalty or now lack of something for it to hide behind) and then elect to move elsewhere with the remainder of your movement. Likewise opponents react as each step is being taken. That's not splitting the move action, that's splitting movement. You cannot take part of a move, then attack, then take the other part of your move unless you have the feat that specifically allows that exceptional behavior. And you're wonderfully illustrating why movement is not analogous to "steps B-E", it's an action, it's a process. A hit delivering it's damage is instantaneous. You made the claim about not being able to interupt someone else's action. You can indeed do this. There are many cases where this can be done. And they're all spelled out in the rules (Readies, AoEs, etc) Now I'm not saying that one can cast an immediate action spell inbetween a specific cause A and consequence B. But I *am* saying that many actions can indeed be subject to interuptions in the middle of those actions. So you're arguing something that has nothing to do with the discussion? Why? :confused: The point under consideration is whether Delay Death can split the completion of the action (the successful attack roll) and its consequence (the damage). Unless a point bears on that discussion, it's irrelevant. Personally I see delay death as something one can react to in between 'X attacks Y' and before it's determined whether or not X hits Y. But this is separating the action just as much as between X hits Y and Y takes damage. But it's not splitting the action from its consequence. The action takes place (in the game world) when the attack roll succeeds, not when the dice are rolled (one is the mechanic, one is the event), if that hasn't happened, you're not splitting the action from its consequence. To go back to the baseball analogy, if you're a photographer taking a picture, you have to decided to take the picture during the swing if you want to get the point of impact. If you wait to see if the ball is hit or not, you'll be too late, since the ball will already be either in the catcher's mitt, or flying away from the bat. Same thing for a caster and delay death. Close Wounds allows retroactive casting, Delay Death does not. Readied actions allow for interrupting actions (e.g., Counterspell) immediate actions, in and of themselves, do not (unless they're readied).
smerwin29 06-27-07, 08:30 PM	Without turning this into a big rule discussion, with all the usual suspects jumping in with their opinions, can I get an answer to a situational question regarding delay death? What I am looking for is an "official" reference (Sage Advice, FAQ) if one has been made. Long-winded, rules-lawyer debates can go in another thread, if you please. Thanks, Shawn Heh. I lost the pool. I said it would turn personal in less than 48 hours. Of course, I did post on a weekend, so I should have taken that into account. A lot of zealous people on the boards, I must say.
Howie23 06-27-07, 08:34 PM	Heh. I lost the pool. I said it would turn personal in less than 48 hours. Of course, I did post on a weekend, so I should have taken that into account. A lot of zealous people on the boards, I must say. Troll. ;) (if the smiley isn't enough to communicate in the medium: I'm kidding) David
JamesMaissen 06-28-07, 12:27 AM	That's not splitting the move action, that's splitting movement. You cannot take part of a move, then attack, then take the other part of your move unless you have the feat that specifically allows that exceptional behavior. So you're arguing something that has nothing to do with the discussion? Why? :confused: The point under consideration is whether Delay Death can split the completion of the action (the successful attack roll) and its consequence (the damage). Unless a point bears on that discussion, it's irrelevant. A few things here: First, again I'm sorry that I used the word 'you' instead of 'one'. I meant it as a generic rather than 'shame on you' as I don't know you, nor you I. I'll try to only use 'you' when I refer directly to something you have said to avoid such angst in the future. Second, when one takes a move action to move, it's a single action. That action can certainly be interupted by many things.. free actions and observations from the mover and readied actions and AOOs by others to name just a few. Taking a standard action by the mover is not one of them it's true. Yet many things can indeed occur during it. Some are expressly spelled out and others perhaps are not. Third, I was reacting to the line of reasoning that you (aka King Kashue) put forth. I don't find it correct. There are actions that one may take that can be interupted by others. This is clearly the case (if it is not then this is where we need to start). It may be debatable in the specific case, but it's clear in others. Your position was/is that it was not true in other cases and thus should clearly continue to hold that way in the specific case of delay death. I find problems with the premise as it was stated. Fourth, I'm not sure which you contend are indisputablely unseparable. One could argue varying degrees of the attack progress are atomic. However, there certainly are things that separate between the attack roll and the result of the attack roll. This seems to make it clear that it is *possible* to so separate things at that point. I certainly would not have intuitively believed that to be the case.. to me as soon as the dice are rolled the outcome seems determined. However rerolls work exactly along the lines of allowing them at this point but not later. Regardless, it does leave open the question whether or not an immediate action can so separate them, but it does certainly close the issue of whether or not it can be done. One may contend that things that separate things at point X must have this spelled out so that they may do so, but as there is not a general rule that they are contradicting I don't see how it's required to achieve it. Lastly, to Sean, I certainly didn't mean anything as a personal attack. I'm sorry others have taken it that way. I'll try to use swear words as well as multiple instances of 'moron' and 'cheeseweasel' when desiring to become personal so as to leave no doubt should I desire to do so in the future. (Though come to think on it, it wouldn't help avoid missunderstanding things by their lack..) -James
Frumpkis 06-28-07, 03:34 AM	To go back to the baseball analogy, if you're a photographer taking a picture, you have to decided to take the picture during the swing if you want to get the point of impact. If you wait to see if the ball is hit or not, you'll be too late, since the ball will already be either in the catcher's mitt, or flying away from the bat. Same thing for a caster and delay death. May I just say, this is a brilliant analogy. I was trying to think of a way to visualize this point in my head, and your imagery is perfect. Now, back to the catfight. ;) (and yes, I too am kidding here)
King Kashue 06-28-07, 03:54 AM	May I just say, this is a brilliant analogy. I was trying to think of a way to visualize this point in my head, and your imagery is perfect. Yeah, I was trying for so long to think up a concrete example. When I came up with that I decided "I'm not going to say it any clearer than that", and my part in the discussion was done :D
control freak 06-28-07, 01:36 PM	personaly i believe that you would be able to tell as soon as you hear the bat crack on the ball and could snap your fingers in responce before the ball is a foot away from the batter, and if you were shot in the head it would take a second or 2 for you to actualy die from it so when an arrow nails you in the eyes you would have time to snap before he falls down it takes less time then a finger snap to do those actions and as such makes them able to happen between hearing the clink on the armor and the gooie squish of flesh
King Kashue 06-28-07, 02:39 PM	personaly i believe that you would be able to tell as soon as you hear the bat crack on the ball and could snap your fingers in responce before the ball is a foot away from the batter Well, if you can do this, you have better reflexes than pretty much every sports photographer in the biz. :D (Not to mention every human on the planet). A ball traveling off a bat is going a bit under 100 mph. Just for the sake of example, let's say it's going 80 mph (which is a lazy fly ball). That means it's going 117 feet per second. To "snap your fingers" when the ball is only a foot away means you have to make the decision to snap and snap in 1/117th of a second. That is not humanly (or Dwarvenly or Elvenly) possible. And that's not even taking into account that if you're 30 feet away, at the moment you hear the crack of the bat, the ball has already traveled Three and a Quarter Feet :D
JamesMaissen 06-28-07, 03:48 PM	Well, if you can do this, you have better reflexes than pretty much every sports photographer in the biz. :D (Not to mention every human on the planet). D&D kinda ignores reality on many levels. Fire breathing dragons are one thing, but turn based initiative kinda makes many notions of reality moot. We have abilities in D&D that can separate the d20 roll from the result of that roll. That seems far beyond the level of separation that you're talking about in your analogy. With it as a given that it is possible to so separate such things, then being able to separate the stated result of one d20 roll with a different subsequent roll doesn't seem impossible for rules to allow. It does leave open whether or not immediate action spells can do so in the main, but it gives a good reason to believe that it's not impossible. -James
CdrcJsn 06-28-07, 04:48 PM	My take on the whole Delay Death thing is that it's already an absurdly powerful spell. Requiring some sort of actual decision making process from the cleric as to when to cast it is more than fair. Bottom line is that it's a grey area. Those wanting to cast it should always ask their judge before play to avoid confusion during play. At my tables though, damage isn't separable from hitting so this has to go off as soon as the attack is declared, but before damage is resolved. Cedric
KarmaInferno 06-28-07, 05:42 PM	A ball traveling off a bat is going a bit under 100 mph. Just for the sake of example, let's say it's going 80 mph (which is a lazy fly ball). That means it's going 117 feet per second. To "snap your fingers" when the ball is only a foot away means you have to make the decision to snap and snap in 1/117th of a second. The average human reaction time is about 3/4 of a second, assuming the subject in question is waiting to react to a given event. That means the ball will have traveled about 88 feet by the time the picture has been taken. You really, really need to be taking the picture as the pitcher is in mid-throw if you hope to catch the ball just as it's being hit by the batter. In most cases with Delay Death, it will be pretty damn obvious when it's needed. If that size large raging barbarian moves next to the guy with low hit points, CAST IT NOW. Don't even wait for the declaration of attacks. Get that spell off. The only time you don't generally have a clear "CAST NOW" signal is for totally unexpected massive damage. The totally unexpected happens. Deal with it. That kinda thing is what Close Wounds (or perhaps Raise Dead) is for. Delay Death has a decent duration. There's no reason to delay using it til the DM is about to roll the dice. Cast it first ask questions later. The worst that can happen is that maybe you didn't need it after all. It's no worse than losing a casting to spell resistance or immunity. -karma
Majoru Oakheart 06-30-07, 12:18 AM	Delay Death has a decent duration. There's no reason to delay using it til the DM is about to roll the dice. Cast it first ask questions later. The worst that can happen is that maybe you didn't need it after all. It's no worse than losing a casting to spell resistance or immunity. No, it's not REQUIRED to cast it right before the DM rolls the dice. However, I like to prepare spells other than Delay Death. So, I prepare 1. In my experience only one person actually NEEDS a Delay Death per mod. However there are about 2-3 scares each mod. I like the freedom to only cast it that 1 time instead of each time it MIGHT be useful.
King Kashue 06-30-07, 04:02 AM	No, it's not REQUIRED to cast it right before the DM rolls the dice. However, I like to prepare spells other than Delay Death. So, I prepare 1. In my experience only one person actually NEEDS a Delay Death per mod. However there are about 2-3 scares each mod. I like the freedom to only cast it that 1 time instead of each time it MIGHT be useful. The fact that you like it has nothing to do with the rules. Player convenience is not an imperative, There's nothing in the rules that says "interpretations should be made so as to reduce situations where players have to make difficult decisions"...
Hariman 07-08-07, 11:50 PM	I agree with King Kashue (i.e. you can't cast delay death after the killing attack has been resolved, you need to cast it before the swing takes place). As far as I know, this has not been explicitly stated in any official rules source. At least one of the DMs in my area allows Delay Death to be used at any time before the character's player says "that killed me". So for that DM, it is between D & E. But the key is, if the player declares "I died", he's dead. Only Close Wounds could help him. Without a doubt, after damage has been applied is too late. However, having to declare Delay Death before an attack roll is a little too early. The happy medium is having players declare it before the damage is rolled. But it doesn't matter how you choose to DM it. You should warn your players if you restrict when Delay Death is cast
Britt 07-09-07, 08:19 AM	At least one of the DMs in my area allows Delay Death to be used at any time before the character's player says "that killed me". Unless the party cleric has status up, the player shouldn't be saying anything other than "I fall down", or something similar. This is one of my pet peeves, where people think they should be sharing their exact hit point totals and status effects with each other. Unless someone is down to something like -20 or fewer hit points, it isn't obvious whether they are dead or just bleeding out; in combat, I let players share percentages of health in 1/4 increments (25%, 50%, 75%), but anything more requires a spell or Heal check. I know I've wasted actions in combat before to give a little healing to a dead person, sometimes knowing OOC that they were already dead, because my character didn't know and wanted to be safe.
control freak 07-09-07, 11:10 AM	i agree with you but i would say that you could see more then just half full or 1/4th, you should be able to see that he is staggering (say from 0 to 10 hit points) and if he is still bleeding (-1 to -9) vs dead.... you could see if hes still breathing (possibly a spot check to realise it or a heal check but as part of your him falling down) after all if blood is still flowing from the body it will be fairly seeable
Cardinal Teplin 07-09-07, 01:56 PM	I prefer players to keep to vague information about how healthy they are. However, some healers down my way simply track everyone's hp themselves. Short of handing out how much damage someone has taken on a bit of paper, there is no way of keeping that damage total from the healer, and the healer knows as a result how many hp they have left. I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, it seems to remove some of the drama, but on the other hand keeping people up and fighting is often the cleric's only real job in the party, and in that sense it's no more unrealistic than the spellcaster's perfect geometrical targeting of area of effect spells. It's the result of training an experience to blast a fireball, or heal someone, so precisely. I generally lean towards allowing it, on the basis that healer is a dull but necessary job, and people who choose to do it shouldn't be discuoruaged. It also helps the game move faster. But I'm not sure I should be so tolerant.
Cardinal Teplin 07-09-07, 01:57 PM	Incidently, what are people's views on NPCs with delay death? Should this spell be avoided?
Nutation 07-09-07, 03:22 PM	Incidently, what are people's views on NPCs with delay death? Should this spell be avoided? Probably. It's only going to matter on an NPC if the writer adds some gimmick such as a druid wildshaped into wolverine that keeps the target conscious and fighting. Maybe if some plot device requires an NPC to die for the problem to be solved, and unconsciousness isn't enough. There are a few examples of this from past modules, and it's not worse than many other tactical challenges.
control freak 07-09-07, 03:33 PM	delay death+ fast healing 10 (shudders) thats why NPCs cannot have Delay Death
Synecdoche 07-09-07, 06:53 PM	Query for those of you who would allow Delay Death after a hit is resolved, but before damage is rolled: would you allow Delay Death in any of the following situations: 1. After ordinary damage is rolled, but before sneak attack damage is rolled? 2. After the first d6 of a greatsword damage is rolled, but before the second d6? 3. After damage is rolled but before Str bonus damage is added? -Synecdoche
control freak 07-09-07, 07:05 PM	no because they tell you exact amounts of TOTAL damage when recieve it
ShinAkuma2 07-09-07, 07:09 PM	Query for those of you who would allow Delay Death after a hit is resolved, but before damage is rolled: would you allow Delay Death in any of the following situations: 1. After ordinary damage is rolled, but before sneak attack damage is rolled? 2. After the first d6 of a greatsword damage is rolled, but before the second d6? 3. After damage is rolled but before Str bonus damage is added? -Synecdoche I don't think any of those can really be done. Damage is applied all at once, in one total. There's no time in between each d6 of a Greatsword, for example. On the other hand, I believe there is an opportunity in between being hit and damage being resolved; for instance, when using Deflect Arrows, you use it after being hit, but before taking any damage.
trollbill 07-09-07, 09:06 PM	Pretty sure you have to be conscious to do an immediate action, AS SOON as you are reduced to 0 or less Hit points you are unconscious (except for die hard) it is not a separate phase unless I am missing something. so I would say not. As to KNOW you were under 0 hitpoints = unconcious, it is a self defeating paradox as you cannot do it... E must have happened for you to realise it. (Characters cannot meta game numbers remember) But there could as always be TV :D It's a paradox, but not a self-defeating one. Its what the rules say. The spell prevents damage that was taken even if it is immediately cast after the damage is taken. The spell does not bring someone back to life who just died, it prevents them from dying in the first place. It does not wake someone up who went unconscious, it prevents them from going unconcious in the first place. You cannot logically accept that I can prevent unconsciousness on someone else by retroactively removing the damage with this spell and then argue I cannot do the same thing on myself. If they did not go unconscious because I cast this spell, than neither did I, and thus I am still conscious and able to cast the spell. Anything else is inconsistant with the wording of the spell.
clannagh 07-09-07, 10:08 PM	It's a paradox, but not a self-defeating one. Its what the rules say. The spell prevents damage that was taken even if it is immediately cast after the damage is taken. The spell doesn't not bring someone back to life who just died, it prevents them from dying in the first place. It does not wake someone up who went unconscious, it prevents them from going unconcious in the first place. You cannot logically accept that I can prevent unconsciousness on someone else by retroactively removing the damage with this spell and then argue I cannot do the same thing on myself. If they did not go unconscious because I cast this spell, than neither did I, and thus I am still conscious and able to cast the spell. Anything else is inconsistant with the wording of the spell. Like the sound of one hand clapping a Zen Koan you have found. (syntax when being profound we do not use) Alternatively if the D&D world subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of the Quantum formalism this may just be a D&D version of Shrodinger's Cat. The PC is in a probability cloud of consciousness/unconsciousness until the decision of whether to start casting is made. That decision collapses the wave function and one of those states becomes "actual". A similiar explanation is possible using the Parallel Universes interpretation of the formalism with two parallel worlds existing - one with an unconscious PC and the other with a retrospectively conscious PC. Which world manifests and continues the timeline will be decide when the PC "decides" whether or not to cast the spell on himself. Generally speaking a god is involved in this spell so all bets are off anyway where logic is concerned. Its only if you set the philosophical timeline around the enlightenment and insist on everything including the deities following a Newtonian world view with hard causation that these issues become a problem.
trollbill 07-09-07, 10:27 PM	:rofl: OMG! I actually understood all that! :eek: Is that a good or a bad thing? :thinks: :rofl:
_metz_ 07-10-07, 06:49 AM	Like the sound of one hand clapping a Zen Koan you have found. (syntax when being profound we do not use) Alternatively if the D&D world subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of the Quantum formalism this may just be a D&D version of Shrodinger's Cat. The PC is in a probability cloud of consciousness/unconsciousness until the decision of whether to start casting is made. That decision collapses the wave function and one of those states becomes "actual". A similiar explanation is possible using the Parallel Universes interpretation of the formalism with two parallel worlds existing - one with an unconscious PC and the other with a retrospectively conscious PC. Which world manifests and continues the timeline will be decide when the PC "decides" whether or not to cast the spell on himself. Generally speaking a god is involved in this spell so all bets are off anyway where logic is concerned. Its only if you set the philosophical timeline around the enlightenment and insist on everything including the deities following a Newtonian world view with hard causation that these issues become a problem. That is the inherent problem, the deific 'throwing off' off the logic. However, if the decision ORIGINATES from the player, then existing game progression should in theory follow. Problem is, that immediate actions are an addition to the rules system that don't quite fit into the mechanic with its current explanations.
JohnduBois 07-10-07, 01:45 PM	Incidently, what are people's views on NPCs with delay death? Should this spell be avoided? I think that putting Delay Death on an NPC is useless. DM: "He's out cold and has a crapton of damage, but we're staying in initiative for some unexplainable reason..." PC: "Okay... I CDG him?" DM: "Oh noes - Fort save not a natural 20... Delay Death irrelevant!"
control freak 07-10-07, 01:54 PM	thats not true with lots of baddies, say 3 clerics at higher apls come in (at apl 10 or so) delay death each other, then they have divine warded each other and cast a "heal" bringing them back to full or put it on a cleric with fast healing 5+ kill them 4,5,6,7 times would be alot harder
Britt 07-10-07, 02:04 PM	Three clerics at high APL is an almost untenable writing assignment. Even if you allow EL=APL+5, since the EL system doesn't work as well at the extremes, you are still left with three APL+1 level clerics, and that's without any other creatures to fill out the encounter. At APL 12, fighting three 13th level clerics is not the most frightening encounter on Oerth, by far. Even if you can make this work, when one drops and the other moves over to heal, that gives you 2/3 of your NPCs occupied by non-offensive actions. Then you have to deal with blowing the treasure cap with three high level, classed NPCs. I'm pretty sure clerics use more treasure than some other classes, too.
control freak 07-10-07, 02:16 PM	hence why i said they dont move over, they used divine ward and more importantly its not hard to write up a cult encounter and say "2-3 clerics of hextor or grummush are fightning you, and 1+ apl x2 = APL+3 so its a interesting encounter, not broken but makes an interesting encounter as a side note, it would be a little broken if you built the NPCs right to tear the players appart straight feats to break the PCs backs 1 first feat: 1 human: 3: 6: 9: 12: thats enough feats to get sudden quicken, which means he delay deaths him, then his action comes up and basicaly he gets a free "shake it off" and at that late of level encounters also depend highly on longer buffs (bears endurange, sheild of faith, aid, exct) if you write a cleric, make sure hes stupid and doesnt pre buff (like a certin lich we all know)
JohnduBois 07-10-07, 02:17 PM	So... three clerics who can cast Heal? Let's assume you follow the EL rules correctly... that's three CR 13 critters... EL 16... so an APL+2 fight for an APL 14 party and an APL +4 fight for an APL 12 party. Those clerics are mincemeat against even an average party if they even think about casting Heal on a downed comrade. One of the more poignant things said to me at Origins (in a conversation about how NPCs rather than PCs are the reason Sudden Metamagic feats should be Closed) was that if you take a party of four equally levelled adventurers that equals an APL +3 encounter, then they would each be one level lower than the APL. Thus, for those adventurers, the PCs are an APL +5 combat, one scaled to more or less kill them outright unless they're really lucky or really good (which is why that's what usually happens). In those situations, casting Heal on a Delay Deathed cleric isn't a winning strategy - it's a stalling tactic.
Britt 07-10-07, 02:27 PM	One of the rules to remember when writing or reviewing an adventure or combat is that the author can win if he wants to. Saying that the author could design an encounter that would kill the PCs doesn't really say anything new. Also, combining a few rules items together to create a situation that is difficult or overpowering does not necessarily mean that every rules option involved is overpowered or inappropriate. Sudden Metamagic is the problem in your scenario, not delay death. While I think delay death is inappropriate, part of the reason is what it does to the mindset of players. Using it as an NPC is less of a problem, as there is no impact on player mindset (plus it's underpowered in that sense, as John points out). From a purely statistical view, delay death is about right for its level, though I think having it last one round would be just right, rather than 1/level.
control freak 07-10-07, 02:51 PM	three CR 13 critters... EL 16... you mean 3 CR 11 critters, EL 14 and yes its a stalling tactic, but i had a mod i played in just recently which the goal was to kill 1 person because after round x bad thing x happened, and it would be really bad to have him still up at full after 4-5 rounds of working his HP down the sudden metamagics for NPCs are the equivilant of the metamagic feats for PCs only STRONGER because he can nova them all off sudden max, emp, quicken, disintigrate, make your save or die and even then you might die type of spells come into existance the issue isnt 1 at a time, thats strong and stupid but not TERRIBLE, the problem is blowing them all on a 1 shot, for instance 1:meta magic feat 3:sudden max 5: sudden emp fire ball for 45 or 22 on a save DC 19 (10+ grey elf min maxed+spell level) or die at APL 2 (granted its APL +3 but it would still have the ablity to exist) even at level 3 (in apl 4) alot of non tanks would just die to that even on a save ok now something more resonable evocation spec 1: still spell 3: sudden max 5: sudden emp 6: meta magic school focus evocation ok stilled, max, emp fire ball so 54 or 27 on a save still a save or die for the party, as opposed to rolling damage and not doing more then max damage still a DC 19 or die and maby die any way i find anything that can make u make a save or die at APL 4 or less compleatly STUPID its fine if the DM rolls high because that will be a isolated incident, but where its always "deal 54 or 27 if they save" is still save or die and maby die any way (if you have 17 or less HP you die automaticaly) theres no feat that i despize more then sudden max, followed closely but sudden emp and quicken, even if they were open i wouldnt take them, any mod they are included in is a mod that the writer is trying to kill some one on perpose or that he just doesnt realize how obseanly stupid the 1/day thing is for baddies
JohnduBois 07-10-07, 02:57 PM	you mean 3 CR 11 critters, EL 14 Doh... indeed - EL 14. Still doesn't change my claim about them being mincemeat. a buncha Sudden Metamagic stuff This is a pretty clear digression. Britt said (and I concur) that at this point of the conversation, the issue is not Delay Death, but rather Sudden Metamagic. For what it's worth, I agree. I feel that Sudden Metamagic is too powerful for NPCs to have and should be Closed for that reason. I can (and during next year's LGCS review, may) cite Core adventures as hard evidence. Let's keep to the issue at hand here. *glances at topic* Ah yes, Delay Death. Without specifically knowing what scenario you discuss, I can't make comments on what you're discussing. Personally, though, I would wonder to what extent Delay Death/Heal would be a more effective stalling tactic than, say, Blade Barrier. Or making one of those clerics a wizard with Wall of Force. Or any number of things physically preventing the PCs by doing something by round X...
control freak 07-10-07, 03:18 PM	sorry about that i was just trying to point out that you can make delay death good for PCs by useing it and heal can be just as effective as anything else in keeping them up, because it cant be dispelled as far as rules options i would ask any PC with ANY actions like delay death, close wounds to announce they have them at the start of the session so that i can tell them when i will allow such things (in my case id allow them to do it after damage is rolled but only because i dont have any rule telling me that they cant and i dont believe DnD follows physics, after all how many of you can make a 5 foot step as a free action :D ) EDIT: this could also be because i am A DM that will give them any beinifit of the doubt on rules unless it is out ragously stupid
Mattastrophic 07-10-07, 07:55 PM	sudden max, emp, quicken, disintigrate, make your save or die and even then you might die type of spells come into existance I think you're overreacting. Just a Disintegrate is lethal; you don't need Empower or Maximize. What the "problem" really comes down to is that the one time in a blue moon you face a competent badguy spellcaster, he has the ability to kill people. They don't need Sudden feats to do it, either. And somehow that's perceived as bad for the campaign. -Matt
control freak 07-10-07, 09:41 PM	not the way some of our DMs roll " ok you saved vs the beholders disintigrate" (rolls up damage so we can see) "take 7" (rolls eyes) that was sad but yes it can be terrible but its not an auto perma death that it can be, a sudden max, emp ray from a 11th level wiz means you might die save or no save (if your 45 hit points or less GG your blown away) if you indeed dont save 33d6 max is probably compleatly dusted you 198 vaporized the average 66-67 damage may not kill if it hits the BDF or even the cleric or even the +3-4-5 con wizard where as the just under 200 damage will probably nuke you period! im not trying to go nuts about it but im just trying to make a point, the main point i cant stand is just the thought of a wizard having sudden quicken (shudders) or a cleric, or anything for that matter, that would just be terrible but my main problem with them is the problem i have with PCs having to take extra rage, and npcs just having the free feat slot where as the PCs (having to do multipul dozens or a little less a day, where as the monsters or enemys need to kill 4-6 PCs to win the combat and when you can do it with 1 set of feats (shakes head) its sad