| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| spadehammerfist05-07-04, 03:34 PM | From the SRD (3.5) Blasphemy Evocation [Evil, Sonic] Level: Clr 7, Evil 7 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 40 ft. Area: Nonevil creatures in a 40-ft.-radius spread centered on you Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None or Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects. HD Effect Equal to caster level Dazed Up to caster level –1 Weakened, dazed Up to caster level –5 Paralyzed, weakened, dazed Up to caster level –10 Killed, paralyzed, weakened, dazed The effects are cumulative and concurrent. No saving throw is allowed against these effects. Dazed: The creature can take no actions for 1 round, though it defends itself normally. Weakened: The creature’s Strength score decreases by 2d6 points for 2d4 rounds. Paralyzed: The creature is paralyzed and helpless for 1d10 minutes. Killed: Living creatures die. Undead creatures are destroyed. Furthermore, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nonevil extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes. Creatures so banished cannot return for at least 24 hours. This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy. The banishment effect allows a Will save (at a –4 penalty) to negate. Creatures whose Hit Dice exceed your caster level are unaffected by blasphemy. Question 1: does ‘Deathward’ protect against the ‘killed’ part? Question 2: what is the weakening? Is it ability damage? Is it ability drain? Does ‘Deathward’ protect against it? Question 3: does ‘Freedom of Movement’ protect against the paralysation? And the biggie… Question 4: dazed!? How many times is any self-respecting DM going to give their powerful evil clerics this spell? By definition these clerics tend to be the PC’s main foes, and therefore will be of higher level (or will have various caster level boosts so that they do daze the PCs)! They also always have plenty of thugs with them + one round’s free attacks = TPK! Also, another point, why does Blasphemy daze when Dictum, Holy Word and Word of Chaos all deafen targets of equal level? This makes little sense when all four spells are basically supposed to be the same spell cast by different alignments. Just look at the in-game effects. Caster Level = deafened (-4 penalty on initiative checks, auto fails listen checks and 20% spell failure chance) compared dazed (to no action but defence)! |
| Beamup05-07-04, 03:44 PM | Originally posted by spadehammerfist Question 1: does ‘Deathward’ protect against the ‘killed’ part? Question 2: what is the weakening? Is it ability damage? Is it ability drain? Does ‘Deathward’ protect against it? Question 3: does ‘Freedom of Movement’ protect against the paralysation? And the biggie… Question 4: dazed!? How many times is any self-respecting DM going to give their powerful evil clerics this spell? By definition these clerics tend to be the PC’s main foes, and therefore will be of higher level (or will have various caster level boosts so that they do daze the PCs)! They also always have plenty of thugs with them + one round’s free attacks = TPK! 1: Yes. 2: It's just a penalty since it goes away on its own in a few rounds. Deathward does not prevent it. 3: Yes. 4: Also, take note there is no save, just SR. Most PCs don't have SR. When you might be facing high-level clerics (or fiends/angels/etc.) with these spells, Greater Spell Immunity becomes your best friend. Especially if you're trying to take down a Balor or Pit Fiend, who can use Blasphemy at will. Also, another point, why does Blasphemy daze when Dictum, Holy Word and Word of Chaos all deafen targets of equal level? This makes little sense when all four spells are basically supposed to be the same spell cast by different alignments. Well, it's only one round of dazed as opposed to 1d4 round of deafness. |
| spadehammerfist05-07-04, 05:34 PM | oh come on, 1 round of daze is much more of a problem for a bunch of PCs than any amount of deafen could be! You can't even get rid of daze except with a heal! |
| d_nychus05-07-04, 05:54 PM | Look at the next effect. 2d6 Str loss is not going to be that big of a deal for as many characters. But being blinded via holy word is nasty for everyone, more nasty than being dazed and weakened. Sure, they are not in direct balance with each other in every instance, but the spells are each equally valid in their own way. |
| DungeonMaster05-07-04, 06:23 PM | Originally posted by spadehammerfist Question 1: does ‘Deathward’ protect against the ‘killed’ part? No. It is not a death effect. There is no death descriptor in the spell. There is no protection against this spell. Question 2: what is the weakening? Is it ability damage? Is it ability drain? Does ‘Deathward’ protect against it? No. Deathward does not protect against ability damage. Question 3: does ‘Freedom of Movement’ protect against the paralysation? Yes. Question 4: dazed!? Dazed is defined in the PHB. Nothing protects you againt being dazed to my knowledge either. How many times is any self-respecting DM going to give their powerful evil clerics this spell? By definition these clerics tend to be the PC’s main foes, and therefore will be of higher level (or will have various caster level boosts so that they do daze the PCs)! They also always have plenty of thugs with them + one round’s free attacks = TPK! Oh no, it gets much much worse than that. Evil domain grants +1 caster level, an orange ioun stone grants +1 caster level and is un-typed and so stacks with itself (unless you use the sage's houserules), a bead of karma grants +4 caster levels. Many prestige class like hierophant grant "spell power" which is +1 caster levels. You can with minimal effort reach +10 caster levels for your NPCs or your PCs. Yes sir, you kill entire roomfulls of 20th level characters with one spell and no-save. Or roomfulls of Titans and Balors. And your caster level being so very very high makes their Spell Resistance meaningless. This spell is categorically insane as written - it's the most powerful (read: broken) spell I've ever seen in D&D putting to shame some of the more notorious spells of the past like cromatic orb. You should immediately house-rule this spell back to the much more sane 3rd edition (not 3.5) version. Or accept the profound implications of a 7th level clerical mass power-word kill in your games. And NEVER apply the half-fiend template as intended in 3.5. You put that puppy on a largish dragon and you've got a TPK with half a wit of use. |
| J. Grenemyer05-07-04, 06:48 PM | Hey Spade, Originally posted by spadehammerfist Question 1: does ‘Deathward’ protect against the ‘killed’ part? Most DMs I know will allow Deathward to protect against being killed, even though there is no [Death] descriptor in the spell. Originally posted by spadehammerfist Question 2: what is the weakening? Is it ability damage? Is it ability drain? Does ‘Deathward’ protect against it? As was said above: The target takes a 2d6 penalty to Strength (meaning Deathward will not help). Originally posted by spadehammerfist Question 3: does ‘Freedom of Movement’ protect against the paralysation? As was said above: Yup. Originally posted by spadehammerfist Question 4: dazed!? Dazed isn't all that big a deal. Most characters with decent AC and Saves can survive for more than one turn without an action anyway (at least, from what I've seen from using this spell in my campaign). Originally posted by spadehammerfist How many times is any self-respecting DM going to give their powerful evil clerics this spell? Every DM that wants to keep his or her game challenging. ;) I've used both Blasphemy and Word of Chaos multiple times in my game (Balors, advanced Death Slaadi and Half-Fiends mostly) and wreaked Havoc on the PC's by dazing, stunning or confusing them, as well as killing their Cohorts outright. And sure, BBEG Clerics tend to be 3-4 levels higher than the characters, so Blasphemy can be very effective. But also consider that the levels where this spell sees play are mid to high, so the PCs who face this spell are not defenseless against it either. Now, if you (and by that I mean the generic 'you') want to throw adventure considerations (such as fun) out the door by tacking on extra NPC/Creature HD, Hierophant levels, Ioun Stones, or picking a high HD creature and slapping on the Half-Fiend Template, all while ignoring the fact that you've raised the CR for your BBEG considerably, etc.. more power to you. Of course the rush you get from killing all the PCs won't last long since your friends might not play with you much after that.... Which is a long winded way of saying Blasphemy isn't an excuse to take your DMs hat off. PM me if you have any specific questions about using this spell in your campaign. :D |
| d_nychus05-07-04, 08:51 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster No. It is not a death effect. There is no death descriptor in the spell. There is no protection against this spell. Death ward protects against both spells with the [Death] descriptor AND magical death effects. Those are two different things. And while blasphemy does not have the [Death] descriptor, only a blind man would fail to notice the fact that blasphemy makes a magical death effect. So, yes, death ward DOES stop blasphemy. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Oh no, it gets much much worse than that. Evil domain grants +1 caster level, an orange ioun stone grants +1 caster level and is un-typed and so stacks with itself (unless you use the sage's houserules), First off, the Sage is not houserules. Second, if his reasonable ruling helps to stop the abuse you claim this spell, why are you still moaning? It makes the spell less "broken," doesn't it? Originally posted by DungeonMaster a bead of karma grants +4 caster levels. Many prestige class like hierophant grant "spell power" which is +1 caster levels. You can with minimal effort reach +10 caster levels for your NPCs or your PCs. Yes sir, you kill entire roomfulls of 20th level characters with one spell and no-save. Or roomfulls of Titans and Balors. And your caster level being so very very high makes their Spell Resistance meaningless. Well, I seriously doubt a +10 caster level is all that easy to attain, but getting a few up there shouldn't be that difficult. Let's make a comparison. Let's say you can get a CL at least one above what you are targetting. All of the word spells are literally about on par with the symbols of weakness and symbols of stunning. The word spells are not useful in direct combat, but have greater effects, and can be targetted around allies or nonhostiles, though the symbol spells have saves. The word spells have no saves, but also affect allies and nonhostiles as well, and you HAVE to be right in the middle of your targets to get it to work, something that is quite dangerous for even a combat heavy cleric at that level. If you manage to pump it up to 5+ CL over your targets, then the spell is still maybe only effectively a level higher, akin to symbol of death (since 1d10 minutes of paralysis is effectively death in combat), but that is drawing up a lot of resources for one effect, and there are plenty of ways to avoid the effects. I seriously doubt there is a reliable way of getting +10 CL above something of your own CR, at least not without focusing solely on that one effect. But, again, there are plently of counters, and it only works under certain circumstances. Originally posted by DungeonMaster This spell is categorically insane as written - it's the most powerful (read: broken) spell I've ever seen in D&D putting to shame some of the more notorious spells of the past like cromatic orb. Nah, 3.0 haste has it beat by a factor of 20 at least. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You should immediately house-rule this spell back to the much more sane 3rd edition (not 3.5) version. Or accept the profound implications of a 7th level clerical mass power-word kill in your games. By sane, do you happen to really mean worthless? Seriously, the 3.0 version of this spell was utterly useless the level you got it. There is a reason no one ever used it. Originally posted by DungeonMaster And NEVER apply the half-fiend template as intended in 3.5. You put that puppy on a largish dragon and you've got a TPK with half a wit of use. Well, you do realize that the half-fiend template increases the CR of the dragon by 3 at that level. If you put this creation up against an appropriate level party, the blasphemy will only give one dazed round and a weakness effect for a few rounds, which will certainly hurt the party, but not overpower them. By the levels the effect gets really nasty, you already dip into Epic level play, which shifts the entire game paradigm anyways, for both the players and the opponents. |
| DungeonMaster05-07-04, 10:51 PM | Originally posted by d_nychus Death ward protects against both spells with the [Death] descriptor AND magical death effects. Those are two different things. And while blasphemy does not have the [Death] descriptor, only a blind man would fail to notice the fact that blasphemy makes a magical death effect. So, yes, death ward DOES stop blasphemy. Nope, you're mixing things up here D. Those are game terms and a magical death effect is a bodak's gaze attack and so forth. Not spells that can cause death. First off, the Sage is not houserules. Second, if his reasonable ruling helps to stop the abuse you claim this spell, why are you still moaning? It makes the spell less "broken," doesn't it? It is a very sane ruling given the enormity of the stupidity of the way this spell was changed. I strongly encourage using it but you also have to be carefull that your PCs don't use the 3.5 crafting system to make "orange ioun-stone"-like boots and hats and whatever. Well, I seriously doubt a +10 caster level is all that easy to attain, but getting a few up there shouldn't be that difficult. Good domain +1 bead of karma +4 +1 orange ioun-stone +5 spell power from say hierophant = +11. Easy as pie. Let's say you can get a CL at least one above what you are targetting. All of the word spells are literally about on par with the symbols of weakness and symbols of stunning. The word spells are not useful in direct combat, but have greater effects, and can be targetted around allies or nonhostiles, though the symbol spells have saves. Pardon? How are the word spells not useful in direct combat? SAVES mean a lot. And the symbols have a max HD or number of creatures affected. Holy word doesn't. You could stick as many balors and titans as you want into that huge area and they're all going to die/be paralyzed. The word spells have no saves, but also affect allies and nonhostiles as well, and you HAVE to be right in the middle of your targets to get it to work, something that is quite dangerous for even a combat heavy cleric at that level. :rolleyes: Please. Telling me I have to be "right in the middle of things" with a 40 foot radius spell is um... rather trite. And if you've played this game for any stretch of time you'de realise clerics have the best overall saves, AC and defensive spells to get "right into the middle of things". and there are plenty of ways to avoid the effects.But, again, there are plently of counters, and it only works under certain circumstances. Like? Silence? Er... um... bard song (maybe)? Er.... I'm still looking... no... no that's about it. Could you um, list some of the "plenty of counters" other than stay the hell out of a 40 to 80 foot radius of the cleric? Nah, 3.0 haste has it beat by a factor of 20 at least. :rofl: 3.5 holy word / blasphemy redifines and transcends the boundaries of the word broken . Room fulls of titans - entire parties of 20th level NPCs - Poof! All dead. Hey it even takes out constructs and undead! Poof! All dead. I'de like to see haste do that... By sane, do you happen to really mean worthless? Seriously, the 3.0 version of this spell was utterly useless the level you got it. There is a reason no one ever used it. You really didn't play 3rd edition did you? Holy word in 3rd edition banishes extraplanar creatures without a save. Well, you do realize that the half-fiend template increases the CR of the dragon by 3 at that level. If you put this creation up against an appropriate level party, the blasphemy will only give one dazed round and a weakness effect for a few rounds, which will certainly hurt the party, but not overpower them. By the levels the effect gets really nasty, you already dip into Epic level play, which shifts the entire game paradigm anyways, for both the players and the opponents. Um, sure D. Take anything that has 13+ HD relative to the CR. Slap half-fiend on it. Broken monster. I'm sure you can rather easily find a non-epic dragon that fits. Or a monster with class levels a la 3.5. Heck even 8+ HD works well too. Paralysis all around. |
| DungeonMaster05-07-04, 10:58 PM | Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Now, if you (and by that I mean the generic 'you') want to throw adventure considerations (such as fun) out the door by tacking on extra NPC/Creature HD, Hierophant levels, Ioun Stones, or picking a high HD creature and slapping on the Half-Fiend Template, all while ignoring the fact that you've raised the CR for your BBEG considerably, etc.. more power to you. Of course the rush you get from killing all the PCs won't last long since your friends might not play with you much after that.... NPCs get gear and levels, it's part of their CR - not seperate. NPCs have motivations. NPCs are not necessarily as dumb as a rock. A broken spell can be mitigated by DM restraint. No one will argue that. You can ban things like core items, ban PrC, restrict templates that work off of the broken spell and ban domains. It's well within your rights - and highly suggested in this case to make the game playable. |
| flyingmoose05-08-04, 01:34 AM | I've got the perfect defense against holy word/blasphemy. Helm of opposite alignment. Blasphemy won't hurt you if you're evil. |
| J. Grenemyer05-08-04, 05:41 AM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster NPCs get gear and levels, it's part of their CR - not seperate. NPCs have motivations. NPCs are not necessarily as dumb as a rock. A broken spell can be mitigated by DM restraint. No one will argue that. You can ban things like core items, ban PrC, restrict templates that work off of the broken spell and ban domains. It's well within your rights - and highly suggested in this case to make the game playable. That's funny, I don't recall saying anything about banning anything. Good DM judgement must not apply to everyone, I guess. :D |
| DungeonMaster05-08-04, 08:36 AM | Good DM judgement NOT = tacitly ignoring. Hoping the problem will just go away or that your players or NPCs won't pick up on how to make this spell killer is a "funny" tance. :rolleyes: |
| J. Grenemyer05-08-04, 02:25 PM | Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster Good DM judgment NOT = tacitly ignoring. Tacitly ignoring what? That it's quite possible (from a DMs omniscient point of view) to pick any combination of magic items, spells, etc.. to always be able to TPK a party? Is that what you think being a good DM is all about? Originally posted by DungeonMaster Hoping the problem will just go away or that your players or NPCs won't pick up on how to make this spell killer is a "funny" stance. Strawman, we meet again. :rolleyes: Anyway, NPCs don't "pick up" on any combo unless a DM builds them that way. Even with gear and Hierophant levels, Blasphemy usually isn't a problem unless a DM deliberately builds the (presumably) NPC Cleric that way. Being able to customize NPCs with spells and items to offer maximum challenge is how the game was designed to be played by DMs. Building NPCs simply to kill players... well no game system can circumvent free will. As for players: So what? The more gear and caster level bumps they receive as they go up in level, the more dangerous the game becomes (because creatures and NPCs become more challenging as well). BTW, the comments about wiping out a room full of Titans and whole 20th level parties are as ludicrous now as they were in the last thread. Add to this the silly statements about 3.5's crafting system being somehow different than 3.0 as well (you can do what DungeonMaster suggests in both editions, unless your DM says otherwise [which he will]). :D |
| spadehammerfist05-08-04, 02:55 PM | This is all great stuff, though I'm not sure we're coming to a consensus Most agree that the spell is too powerful as is, and people are obviously house ruling it (upping the levels of targets it can affect and giving a saving throw seems to be the most fair). I the concept of describing the spells' different effects by describing the spells as doing something slightly different (a telling off, rather than a lot of rude words, etc). But at the end of the day, (I MUST STOP USING THAT PHRASE!) the four spells are supposed to be equivalent. The whole point of spell design is that spells of the same level are of the same power; and these spells aren't just that they are the same concept (just for different alignments)! What really winds me up is that this is a prime example of where Wizards have nerfed our game; with, let's face it, a tinkering with a system we were all just learning to like, for financial gain. Now I don't mind them making financial gain, if they didn't we wouldn't get any product, but it is the responsibility of the producer of a product to provide a well-thought out and tested product. Too often, problems arise in a 3.5 game that arise because of badly thought out concepts and not enough proper trialling. Now I know that Wizards will claim that they were only responding to our responses to 3.0, but if that was the case, why didn't they ask us IF we wanted a revision? Which brings me back to Blasphemy, and funnily enough, Sleep! Sleep has been severely ruined as a spell for any Bard, Sorceror or Wizard to want to take. The reasoning for this was because it was a spell that could give an instant kill, and Wizards thought that this was to be avoided. Yes, good point, but did anyone (has anyone ever) complained about Sleep (a core spell for always)? Then look at the effects, or consequences of Blasphemy, et al... Potential instant kills? Yep. Nerfed? Nope. HUH!? Logic error...does not compute...bzzeiaarp! P.S. go to http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87583 to see some other opinions to the same thread start. |
| d_nychus05-08-04, 05:14 PM | Err, I do not agree it is too powerful at all. In fact I wouldn't pick it as a 7th level spell. I would much rather have destruction as a 7th level spell, or monster summoning VII; something that is not so ridiculously dependant upon the opponent's HD. I think the bulk of the "tinkering" done in 3.5 was done with player feedback in mind, and most of it is well done. Wizard's nerfed the parts of the game that people, including myself, were complaining were broken. And the game runs a LOT more smoothly in 3.5 than in 3.0. I use a LOT less houserules (currently, I think I only have four that are not campaign specific, rather than the 30+ I had to use with 3.0) And I do not even remotely see how sleep is "ruined" for arcane casters. It just doe not end 75% of all encounters instantly like it did in 3.0. My wizard player actually uses other spells as well as sleep fro combat in 3.5, and enchanters are no longer the ultimate low level spell casters. |
| d_nychus05-08-04, 06:19 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster Nope, you're mixing things up here D. Those are game terms and a magical death effect is a bodak's gaze attack and so forth. Not spells that can cause death. You want to show me where, in writing, it says that death ward ONLY affects [Death] spells? Because I thought the phrase magical death effects meant, you know, magical death effects. Originally posted by DungeonMaster It is a very sane ruling given the enormity of the stupidity of the way this spell was changed. I strongly encourage using it but you also have to be carefull that your PCs don't use the 3.5 crafting system to make "orange ioun-stone"-like boots and hats and whatever. Actually, I WILL encourage them if they want to try that. If they want to make an ioun stone boot, they can go ahead. Then let them use the non-stacking items all they want. Just like a ring of protection and a codpiece of protection don't stack. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Good domain +1 bead of karma +4 +1 orange ioun-stone +5 spell power from say hierophant = +11. Easy as pie. Yes, because as we all know, PrCs must be given out by DM freely to PCs and NPCs without any regulation or restraint. It would be agaisnt the rules to do anything less, wouldn't it? And even if you DID take 5 levels of Heirophant, you lose out on your HIGHER LEVEL SPELLS. 5 levels of spellcasting lost is really a harsh hit. Sure, you might be a one trick wonder with that spells, but anything that's immune to the bulk of the effects is just going to laugh in your direction. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Pardon? How are the word spells not useful in direct combat? SAVES mean a lot. And the symbols have a max HD or number of creatures affected. Holy word doesn't. You could stick as many balors and titans as you want into that huge area and they're all going to die/be paralyzed. Well, at least the symbols can affect higher than your CL in HD. the word spells cannot, and thus are usually pretty worthless against something of your CR or higher. And unless you are REALLY pushing the envelope on CL, I doubt you can wipe out entire groups of titans or balors unless you are already high enough level to do it already. You can get lucky with a fireball at 6th level and wipe out an entire group of CR 6 creatures with a single spell and the right equipment or feats, too, under the right circumstances. Originally posted by DungeonMaster :rolleyes: Please. Telling me I have to be "right in the middle of things" with a 40 foot radius spell is um... rather trite. And if you've played this game for any stretch of time you'de realise clerics have the best overall saves, AC and defensive spells to get "right into the middle of things". At 13th level, being within 40ft. of an opponent when you are not a melee based character IS right in the middle of things. At 13th level, a single hit is all that is needed to really damage or debilitate you by a good portion of creatures. And the trite about clerics having the BEST saves is ridiculous. The best saves in the game are paladins and monks, bar none. Sure a cleric can waste some of his spell slots to pump up his saves, but then he loses out on his offense. Clerics, fighters, and paladins usually have the best ACs, with heavier weight to the fighters usually, because they don't have to spend money on spell boosting items, like your, oh, so powerful, ioun stones. Sure, a cleric can be quite powerful on the defense, but if he focuses too much on the defense, he loses out heavily on the offense. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Like? Silence? Er... um... bard song (maybe)? Er.... I'm still looking... no... no that's about it. Could you um, list some of the "plenty of counters" other than stay the hell out of a 40 to 80 foot radius of the cleric? Silence is a fun counter right off the bat, yeah. Death ward prevents against the death effect, unless you houserule it. Freedom of movement prevents the paralysis effects. Could also go with your favorite toy and say a lavender and green ioun stone, but that would be cheesy. That's just what I can think of without going into things too deeply. I'm sure there's plenty others will find. Originally posted by DungeonMaster :rofl: 3.5 holy word / blasphemy redifines and transcends the boundaries of the word broken . Room fulls of titans - entire parties of 20th level NPCs - Poof! All dead. Hey it even takes out constructs and undead! Poof! All dead. I'de like to see haste do that... Umm, haste did do that. Having 2 spells a round meant that the moment the spell caster went, the combat was over 90% of the time. And again, I'm not denying that the spell can take out a lot of things. It's just not very effective against anything really of your CR. It's a good spell for taking out scrubs, just like it was in 3.0. At least in 3.5, you can possibly affect. And Constructs are not living creatures, so, no 'Poof! All dead!' Unless you are really bad at reading the rules. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You really didn't play 3rd edition did you? Holy word in 3rd edition banishes extraplanar creatures without a save. Umm, yes, I did, and clearly more extensively than you. A 7th level spell that can be used to automatically do what a 6th level spell could do with only slight chance of failure is, as I said, useless. There was NO reason to ever use the word spells in 3.0. In 3.5, they are a decent offensive debilitating spell, and good for getting rid of a lot of scrubs, but not much else. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Um, sure D. Take anything that has 13+ HD relative to the CR. Slap half-fiend on it. Broken monster. I'm sure you can rather easily find a non-epic dragon that fits. Or a monster with class levels a la 3.5. Heck even 8+ HD works well too. Paralysis all around. Umm, care to prove it? I see the exact opposite. Well, If you actually do the math correctly. I looked at a few dragons, and added the half-fiend template, and none of them had a modified CR that exceeded their HD by more than 3 or 4 until Epic level play. So, no paralysis all around unless you intentially outclass the players. Might make for a good boss fight, sure. |
| DungeonMaster05-09-04, 05:44 PM | Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Tacitly ignoring what? That it's quite possible (from a DMs omniscient point of view) to pick any combination of magic items, spells, etc.. to always be able to TPK a party? Is that what you think being a good DM is all about? And I get the strawman label?! You're kidding yourself if you think you can just pick any items for an NPC and automatically TPK a party in the way 3.5 holy word does. Maybe if you provided some actual proof to back up your great generalisations. Go find me a legitimate item combo that paralyzes/kills everyone in a 40 foot or greater spread in one round without save, no attack rolls either. Just SR. Not going to happen methinks. Anyway, NPCs don't "pick up" on any combo unless a DM builds them that way. Even with gear and Hierophant levels, Blasphemy usually isn't a problem unless a DM deliberately builds the (presumably) NPC Cleric that way. That's of course refering again to the um, DM restraint I was talking about? Fact of the matter is the spell is broken six-ways-sunday and any cleric of sufficient level to recognise it's power would want to use it . You guys are literally great. You claim one day "every NPC would use haste excessively because it's that good" but then "every NPC would use blasphemy with restraint because it's that good". Please, the dripping irony is killing me here. BTW, the comments about wiping out a room full of Titans and whole 20th level parties are as ludicrous now as they were in the last thread. Add to this the silly statements about 3.5's crafting system being somehow different than 3.0 as well (you can do what DungeonMaster suggests in both editions, unless your DM says otherwise [which he will]) You can fit 10 titans into the area of effect and heck this spell can even be enlarged to fit 15 more or so. It doesn't need to be titans - it could be gelugons, balors, pit-fiends... You do of course remember that little chart in the DMG for multiple monsters right? You do play with multiple monsters - at least sometimes no? Not all EL are you know, a single CR equivalent monster? There are um, feats and spells specifically geared towards encounters with multiple monsters? It's um, a "constant" of the game design? There is again and I'll point this out for the last time J, nothing in the rules to say you can assign bonuses willy nilly to caps, boots, capes and whatnot. The 3.5 rules have explicit mention of it. So no, the two systems are not alike and the 3rd edition rules have a reasonably blasphemy and no orange iouns stones +1 caster levels untyped. Deal with it. |
| DungeonMaster05-09-04, 05:53 PM | Originally posted by d_nychus Err, I do not agree it is too powerful at all. In fact I wouldn't pick it as a 7th level spell. I would much rather have destruction as a 7th level spell, or monster summoning VII; something that is not so ridiculously dependant upon the opponent's HD. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh please. I think the bulk of the "tinkering" done in 3.5 was done with player feedback in mind, and most of it is well done. I think the bulk was non-sensical arbitrary house-rules to the real game with very little feedback taken into account. You have no idea how many complaints I read in Dragon Magazine about multiple types of cover. :rolleyes: Wizard's nerfed the parts of the game that people, including myself, were complaining were broken. And the game runs a LOT more smoothly in 3.5 than in 3.0. With any luck we'll get some old school gamers buoyed by people like myself to write the next edition and re-write the travesty that is currently on shelves. Tell me D, have you hit your players with 3.5 blasphemy yet? You know, full force no holding back? Smooth as the surface of the moon my friend. :rolleyes: I won't even bother discussing sleep with you. We've been there before, you do remember the 4HD cap right? |
| DungeonMaster05-09-04, 06:21 PM | Originally posted by d_nychus You want to show me where, in writing, it says that death ward ONLY affects [Death] spells? Because I thought the phrase magical death effects meant, you know, magical death effects. Try the um, first line? Can you please re-read what a "death effect" is in the DMG? I know they have a nice section on it in the 3rd edition DMG... Actually, I WILL encourage them if they want to try that. If they want to make an ioun stone boot, they can go ahead. Then let them use the non-stacking items all they want. Just like a ring of protection and a codpiece of protection don't stack. Typed versus un-typed. The sage's ruling is untyped from the same source don't stack. It's a different source so even then it stacks. And even if you DID take 5 levels of Heirophant, you lose out on your HIGHER LEVEL SPELLS. 5 levels of spellcasting lost is really a harsh hit. Sure, you might be a one trick wonder with that spells, but anything that's immune to the bulk of the effects is just going to laugh in your direction. I can cope with killing everything in a huge area with one spell and delaying my spellcasting. No really I can. Who would have thunk that? :rolleyes: Well, at least the symbols can affect higher than your CL in HD. the word spells cannot, and thus are usually pretty worthless against something of your CR or higher. Except for of course my other spells. (I still have those right?) And unless you are REALLY pushing the envelope on CL, I doubt you can wipe out entire groups of titans or balors unless you are already high enough level to do it already. Um, the ioun stones are easy to make. I don't need to kill those particular monsters - I just need to paralze them. I can get +10 caster level easy so yeah at level 15 I can take out room-fulls of them. You can get lucky with a fireball at 6th level and wipe out an entire group of CR 6 creatures with a single spell and the right equipment or feats, too, under the right circumstances. Um no? Please provide proof for wild assertion? Who said anything about circumstances? All I need for holy word is 40 feet proximity. At 13th level, being within 40ft. of an opponent when you are not a melee based character IS right in the middle of things. At 13th level, a single hit is all that is needed to really damage or debilitate you by a good portion of creatures. Again, please provide proof of said assertions. It is your own skewed perception that the warriors have better saves and AC than the cleric because the cleric needs to spend more on his gear - clerics craft their stuff in my own skewed perception. Sure, a cleric can be quite powerful on the defense, but if he focuses too much on the defense, he loses out heavily on the offense. Nope. Divine power, righteous might and divine favor are almost all you need for offence. Bzzt! Wrong answer. Lavender green ioun-stones are like rods of absoption and they specifically don't work against area effect magic. Please "delve deeply" D. Because um, you're not going to find much at all. Umm, haste did do that. Having 2 spells a round meant that the moment the spell caster went, the combat was over 90% of the time. You must have severe problems with metamagic rods in your campaigns in 3.5 according to the above exaggeration without basis in reality. It does not target living creatures only. Constructs are fair game. Umm, yes, I did, and clearly more extensively than you. A 7th level spell that can be used to automatically do what a 6th level spell could do with only slight chance of failure is, as I said, useless. There was NO reason to ever use the word spells in 3.0. In 3.5, they are a decent offensive debilitating spell, and good for getting rid of a lot of scrubs, but not much else. I highly doubt that because you'll realise upon short perusal of Banishment that it has both a HD cap and a save, so no dice D. I don't know what math is escaping you D. 13+ HD relative to CR and poof! Dead PCs. Let me break it um really simply for you: It has CR X and HD X+13. Add on the half-fiend template. It then has CR X+3 and HD X+13. That means it has X+13 - (X+3) = 10 HD more than the PCs levels. That means the blasphemy kills them in one shot. No save. SR checked at +10 relative to PC levels. Poof! |
| DungeonMaster05-09-04, 06:43 PM | I'm sorry about the battery of replies, I've been away from a computer for a day or so. Originally posted by spadehammerfist This is all great stuff, though I'm not sure we're coming to a consensus Most agree that the spell is too powerful as is, and people are obviously house ruling it (upping the levels of targets it can affect and giving a saving throw seems to be the most fair). You'll always have outliers in every distribution. Some people even faced with the brokeness of this spell will refuse to accept it as real. Giving a saving throw and upping the level of targets is indeed quite fair. What really winds me up is that this is a prime example of where Wizards have nerfed our game; with, let's face it, a tinkering with a system we were all just learning to like, for financial gain. Now I don't mind them making financial gain, if they didn't we wouldn't get any product, but it is the responsibility of the producer of a product to provide a well-thought out and tested product. Too often, problems arise in a 3.5 game that arise because of badly thought out concepts and not enough proper trialling. I couldn't agree enough with you. What bothers me is the blatant bias in the "revisions" that were done. Anyone who has played D&D to any extent knows of certains spells like holy word that have HD dependent effects. The claim of certain people (in the case of holy word an erroneous claim) is that these spells become useless at higher levels. Why then was circle of death not un-capped? In all honesty I can find no reason to un-cap holy word yet ignore the death spell of arcane casters. Heck the latter even has a save for crying out loud. Sleep has been ruined in 3.5. In so many ways as well. As it stands kobolds, goblins and such are 1 HD monsters in 3.5 and so it affects even fewer creatures then stamping 4HD only on it. 2d4 is on average 5 HD, so that's a drop of one HD (very significant at this level of play...), AND the monster HD increased. It's amazingly bad in 3.5. To top it off with the full round casting time. I've seen wizards get lucky on sleep spells and take out big groups of low HD monsters - saving the party/defeating a high EL. It happens. But if you play by the dice (and the dice are "fair" ;) ) It will take as much as it gives. You can't claim that about blasphemy of course because there are no dice, no saves, not mind-affecting, not even a death effect, nothing but SR and if you can kill it you likely can beat that without a second glance. |
| Your Immortal DM05-09-04, 09:49 PM | I have to agree with Dungeon Master, when I have players using Alamanther’s return to duplicate holy word (or blasphemy) spells, I take a closer look. The cleric “word” spells are UBER powerful in the extreme. They have no attack roll, no hit point limit, affect multiple creatures with no limit, and have no save if the caster level is high enough (only SR). Maybe your kind DM won’t use this TPK, but I can assure you that a player will given time. As soon as they get a few good caster levels on them, he’ll make scrolls of the holy word type spells. From my experience, these spells are really bad at the higher caster levels (or with just a few caster level bonuses). Dungeon Master knows what he’s talking about; its rooms full of dead high CR creatures at the higher levels. Also, deathward does not protect from this spell either (but IMO, the holy word type spells should have a death descriptor). Re-read the section on descriptors in your PHB. All other spells and magical effects have descriptors so you know how they interact with other things. (see the MM and various monsters with magical abilities for examples, you’ll find the magical effects have descriptors in their explanations) Your Immortal DM |
| J. Grenemyer05-10-04, 03:48 AM | There are so many things wrong with DungeonMaseter's last post, I don't know where to begin. Look for a formal reply on Tuesday. :rolleyes: |
| Beamup05-10-04, 10:22 AM | Originally posted by Your Immortal DM Also, deathward does not protect from this spell either (but IMO, the holy word type spells should have a death descriptor). Re-read the section on descriptors in your PHB. All other spells and magical effects have descriptors so you know how they interact with other things. (see the MM and various monsters with magical abilities for examples, you’ll find the magical effects have descriptors in their explanations) Read the description of the spell sometime. It protects from "death spells" (i.e. spells with the [Death] descriptor) AND "magical death effects." These are not the same thing. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Try the um, first line? Can you please re-read what a "death effect" is in the DMG? I know they have a nice section on it in the 3rd edition DMG... YOU read the first line. It protects from death spells and magical death effects, which are not the same thing. You also need to read the DMG yourself to find out what a "Death Attack" is. (There is no "death effect" listed in the 3.5 DMG.) Nowhere does it specify that it applies only to [Death] spells, and in fact some of the effects listed as examples are NOT specified as [Death] effects - but it does specifically state that death ward protects against them. |
| DungeonMaster05-10-04, 10:34 AM | Can we avoid a quote-war J? If you just reference the first and last line I'll be fine. It'll make our posts more legible in the end. Sorry for not doing that in the first place, I realised only afterwards how many quotes there are... Beamup, can you please explain to me why you would need to say it protects against death spells if "magical death effects" is already an all-englobing term? There's a distinction right there in the spell description. It specifically does not protect you against other effects that might be lethal. (There is no "death effect" listed in the 3.5 DMG.) Pity that. There's a whole section on them in the 3rd edition DMG. Maybe it's called "death attacks". |
| PhaedrusXY05-10-04, 10:55 AM | From the 3.5 version of Death Ward: The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.Death Spell has a very specific meaning. Death is one of the Descriptors. From the 3.5 SRD Magic Overview: [DESCRIPTOR] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. Magical death effects would be things like the actual wail of a banshee, a bodak's stare, etc. The only spells protected against would be those that include the [Death] descriptor. Edit: Or those that use Negative Energy. |
| Beamup05-10-04, 10:55 AM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster Beamup, can you please explain to me why you would need to say it protects against death spells if "magical death effects" is already an all-englobing term? There's a distinction right there in the spell description. Because one is more specific than the other. You, OTOH, are claiming that they are identical which is entirely nonsensical. It specifically does not protect you against other effects that might be lethal. Correct, just magical death effects. Pity that. There's a whole section on them in the 3rd edition DMG. Maybe it's called "death attacks". Which, as I said, covers several examples of things that are NOT specified as [Death] yet are covered by death ward. In summary, the position that death ward only protects against spells with the [Death] descriptor and no other forms of death attack is rather explicitly contradicted both by the spell description itself and the DMG. It is totally untenable and indefensible. |
| jokotoko05-10-04, 11:00 AM | DungeonMaster, I have been reading your post on these boards for some time now. As usual, I think you're absolutely right. |
| Beamup05-10-04, 11:03 AM | Originally posted by PhaedrusXY Magical death effects would be things like the actual wail of a banshee, a bodak's stare, etc. The only spells protected against would be those that include the [Death] descriptor. This is only slightly more credible. Yet it is still not supported by any rules text. "Magical effects" as a general category clearly include spells. The DMG description of Death Attacks makes no mention whatsoever of "death spells" or the [Death] descriptor in its specification of what constitutes a Death Attack, yet it does state that death ward protects against all of them. Let's also note that Raise Dead states that "A creature who has been ... killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell." It does not mention "death spells" anywhere, yet [Death] spells cannot be reversed by Raise Dead. Thus if a "(magical) death effect" is meant to be only non-spell effects, Raise Dead's description states that it can raise someone killed by power word: kill, in direct contradiction to the DMG discussion of the subject. Either all of these different sections of the rules are totally contradictory, or "(magical) death effect" includes such things as blasphemy. |
| PhaedrusXY05-10-04, 11:06 AM | Originally posted by Beamup In summary, the position that death ward only protects against spells with the [Death] descriptor and no other forms of death attack is rather explicitly contradicted both by the spell description itself and the DMG. It is totally untenable and indefensible. No it's not. It's correct. You're the one reading too much into the rules. They are very explicit, and to be taken as literally and minimally as possible, not overgeneralized to everything as you're doing. "Magical death affect" is not defined within the rules, so you have to interpret a bit. The Death Ward description specifically tells which spells it protects against, and then goes on to say that it also protects against other types of magical death effects. There is no such thing as a "magical death effect" defined within the rules. However, there is a special ability type called a Death Attack, which is presumably what they meant when they said "magical death effect" in the description of Death Ward. It is listed in the section on Abilities and Conditions in the SRD, which covers Extraordinary, Spell-like, and Supernatural abilities. So Death Attacks should always be one of these three things. It does not include spells. Those are covered by the Descriptors in the Magic Overview. |
| PhaedrusXY05-10-04, 11:11 AM | Originally posted by Beamup in direct contradiction to the DMG discussion of the subject.Then the DMG discussion is wrong. The spell Power Word, Kill doesn't mention anything about not being able to be Raised after being killed by it. Neither does Raise Dead; it says "death effect", which to me means "Death Attack", since death effect isn't defined. So you can, indeed, be Raised after being killed by Power Word, Kill. It's just another example of ambiguity in the rules, and of the author's swapping terms around. This has all been debated before, and the conclusion reached then was that Death Ward does not protect against Blasphemy, if I remember correctly. That's what I remember taking away from it, anyway. |
| Naeron05-10-04, 11:22 AM | The real problem with this spell is that it is far more effective against the party than against most monsters. Barring classed humanoids and outsiders (whose CR is generally no greater than their HD+3) the vast majority of monsters have far more HD than their CR, and therefore the likely caster level of anyone using one of these spells. However the converse is not true. So when a party faces a spell-caster their opponents caster level is often equal to or higher than the parties HD (especially if LA comes into play). So these spells can easily cripple a lot of PC's and there is little defence as SR is not that common for PC's. However the PC's fighting monsters will often find that the reverse is true and the monsters HD exceed their ability to affect the enemy using spells such as Blasphemy. A prepared Balor (CR20) has the capability to wipe out an 18th level party or lower, and yet is should be a "hard" fight not a prospective TPK. To affect multiple targets the spell really should allow a saving throw at the minimum. |
| Beamup05-10-04, 11:39 AM | Originally posted by PhaedrusXY No it's not. It's correct. You're the one reading too much into the rules. They are very explicit, and to be taken as literally and minimally as possible, not overgeneralized to everything as you're doing. And then you say that it's not explicitly defined so you have to interpret. :rolleyes: The rules are NOT in any sense fully explicit and meant to be taken literally. That's the sort of approach that leads to dragons flying 500 feet in the air instantly being on the ground as soon as they are tripped, without passing through the intervening space. "Magical death affect" is not defined within the rules, so you have to interpret a bit. The Death Ward description specifically tells which spells it protects against, and then goes on to say that it also protects against other types of magical death effects. No, actually it's not specific at all. It says "death spell," which can be reasonably intepreted to mean "spell with the [Death] descriptor," but not necessarily. Also, since when does "it protects against these spells, and also these additional things" imply that the 'additional things' cannot include spells? For that matter, it's only an assumption that "death spell" really does mean "spell with the [Death] descriptor." I find it very amusing that you maintain that the rules are meant to be taken 100% literally, and that it certainly refers only to [Death] spells, when the [Death] descriptor is not mentioned once in the spell description. There is no such thing as a "magical death effect" defined within the rules. However, there is a special ability type called a Death Attack, which is presumably what they meant when they said "magical death effect" in the description of Death Ward. It is listed in the section on Abilities and Conditions in the SRD, which covers Extraordinary, Spell-like, and Supernatural abilities. So Death Attacks should always be one of these three things. It does not include spells. Those are covered by the Descriptors in the Magic Overview. Now this is totally ridiculous. The "Death Attack" section covers power word: kill as a specific example. It is quite general, including spells, and does not mention [Death] descriptors or even the term "death spell" once. There is no support at all for excluding blasphemy from the class. The section also covers Antimagic - using antimagic field as an example. It covers charm and complusion effects - are you suggesting that the rules here don't apply to charm person? It covers Damage Reduction - including righteous might as an example. It covers Invisibility - should these rules be assumed not to apply to invisibility? And Polymorph - including the polymorph spell. The Abilities and Conditions section covers magical spells too. Any cursory look at the section provides any number of examples. Then the DMG discussion is wrong. The spell Power Word, Kill doesn't mention anything about not being able to be Raised after being killed by it. Neither does Raise Dead; it says "death effect", which to me means "Death Attack", since death effect isn't defined. So you can, indeed, be Raised after being killed by Power Word, Kill. It's just another example of ambiguity in the rules, and of the author's swapping terms around. It's not at all ambiguous. Death Attacks include power word: kill explicitly. Thus raise dead is thwarted by it, since the rules ONLY contradict each other if you make the totally unwarranted assumption that "death effect" does not include spells - an assumption for which you have provided no justification whatsoever. This has all been debated before, and the conclusion reached then was that Death Ward does not protect against Blasphemy, if I remember correctly. That's what I remember taking away from it, anyway. If that conclusion was reached based on the sort of arguments you've been putting forth (i.e. totally in contradiction to the rules) the that conclusion was wrong. If there were better arguments for it, then provide them. I'll close by providing the definition of death attack from the PHB glossary: A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target, such as finger of death. Neither raise dead nor reincarnation can grant life to a creature slain by a death attack, though resurrection and more powerful effects can. Blasphemy is certainly "a spell that instantly slays the target." Thus it is a "death attack." Thus it is countered by death ward. |
| Kyuketsukiouji05-10-04, 11:46 AM | Actually, to be precise, Death Ward does not stop Blasphemy. It stops Blasphemy from killing you. (The distinction is important because Blasphemy will still work on a Death Warded person that has enough HD not to be affected by the death effect.) |
| Beamup05-10-04, 11:50 AM | Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Actually, to be precise, Death Ward does not stop Blasphemy. It stops Blasphemy from killing you. (The distinction is important because Blasphemy will still work on a Death Warded person that has enough HD not to be affected by the death effect.) You're right, I've been being rather imprecise. I've been saying "blasphemy" as a shorthand for "the death effect of blasphemy". The daze/weaken/paralyze effects are totally unaffected by death ward, of course. |
| DungeonMaster05-10-04, 03:04 PM | Originally posted by Beamup Thus if a "(magical) death effect" is meant to be only non-spell effects, Raise Dead's description states that it can raise someone killed by power word: kill, in direct contradiction to the DMG discussion of the subject. By this logic then this clause in raise dead is redundant because there's no such thing as a "death effect" in the rules and likewise the seperation between "death spells" and "magical death effect" is likewise redundant in the death ward descriptor. Either all of these different sections of the rules are totally contradictory, or "(magical) death effect" includes such things as blasphemy. [/B] Well you can take the stance that the whole damn thing is contradictory - since there is no such thing as a "magical death effect" in the rules then death ward is only useful against death spells. Or you can say that means "death attack" - and everything makes sense, it protects against death spells and death attacks. Or you can willy nilly say poison magically killed you so death ward keeps you alive, disintegrate magically killed you so death ward keeps you alive, phantamal killer and weird all blocked, turned to copper and melted by a lightning bolt, yep you're dead but death ward protects you there too... No, I think I'll stick with the simplest interpretation of the rules. Death spells and death attacks thank you. Taking "magical death effects" out of the context of actual [Death] has so many repurcussions on the game that basically you can ascribe whatever you want to it and that's a dangerous threshold to cross. While diverting I don't know how anyone can claim this spell is balanced, even considering the clearly iffy case of interpretation that death ward blocks one component of this spell. Thank you for the support Your Immortal DM and jokotoko! |
| DungeonMaster05-10-04, 03:12 PM | Double post. Lag.... |
| Beamup05-10-04, 03:14 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster By this logic then this clause in raise dead is redundant because there's no such thing as a "death effect" in the rules and likewise the seperation between "death spells" and "magical death effect" is likewise redundant in the death ward descriptor. "Death spell" is a subset of "magical death effect," yes. Thus it could technically be left out, but it does add clarity. But, there is no possible way you can claim "this clause in raise dead is redundant" because it's the only place in the spell that specifies death effects are exempt. Well you can take the stance that the whole damn thing is contradictory - since there is no such thing as a "magical death effect" in the rules then death ward is only useful against death spells. Or you could recognize that a "magical death effect" is a spell or other magical effect that inflicts death. Every single phrase need not be explicitly defined to have meaning. Or you can say that means "death attack" - and everything makes sense, it protects against death spells and death attacks. This is indeed precisely what I am saying. It protects against death spells and death attacks. Death spells happen to be a kind of death attack that warrant special mention. The slaying effect of blasphemy is a death attack. Quite simple. Or you can willy nilly say poison magically killed you so death ward keeps you alive, disintegrate magically killed you so death ward keeps you alive, phantamal killer and weird all blocked, turned to copper and melted by a lightning bolt, yep you're dead but death ward protects you there too... No, I think I'll stick with the simplest interpretation of the rules. Death spells and death attacks thank you. Absolutely. Taking "magical death effects" out of the context of actual [Death] has so many repurcussions on the game that basically you can ascribe whatever you want to it and that's a dangerous threshold to cross. Simple and straightforward interpretation of English, or a little common sense, makes this totally untrue. While diverting I don't know how anyone can claim this spell is balanced, even considering the clearly iffy case of interpretation that death ward blocks one component of this spell. I agree it's unbalanced - it should grant a save. But the interpretation that death ward blocks the slay effect is not "iffy," it is unquestionable. |
| Kyuketsukiouji05-10-04, 03:18 PM | Careful there, it doesn't protect against "Death Attacks", it protects against "Magical Death Effects". That's not the same at all. For instance, an Epic Fighter with Devastating Critical isn't stopped by Death Ward (his feat isn't magical). Neither is death by massive damage. It has to be magic (or at least Supernatural), for Death Ward to stop it. |
| Beamup05-10-04, 03:36 PM | Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Careful there, it doesn't protect against "Death Attacks", it protects against "Magical Death Effects". That's not the same at all. For instance, an Epic Fighter with Devastating Critical isn't stopped by Death Ward (his feat isn't magical). Neither is death by massive damage. It has to be magic (or at least Supernatural), for Death Ward to stop it. Those aren't Death Attacks, as reading the section in the DMG on the term makes clear. (Of course, the reason they aren't is because they're mundane effects, but the point still holds.) |
| Kyuketsukiouji05-10-04, 03:39 PM | Hmm...SRD has about 3 lines on "Death Attacks". Ah well. |
| Beamup05-10-04, 03:48 PM | Yeah, the DMG has about four times as much, including examples. |
| Nick Soapdish05-10-04, 05:50 PM | I think the spell by itself is fine. The problem comes into play when you allow multiple level-boosting items, such as the bead of karma (which is one of the things that I wish they had fixed in 3.5 because it was a problem - although for other reasons - back in 3.0). Also, I subscribe to the viewpoint that "magical death effects" include spells in which the effect is death (as opposed to hit point loss which may cause death). |
| WizO_Catoblepas05-10-04, 06:53 PM | Ok, let's tone down the personal nature of the posts. Keep the posts to the subject matter of the thread and not make comments that the other side must be lesser in intelligence to make a comment. Otherwise, I'm going to have to close the thread and send out some unpleasant e-mails. Remember that the important aspect of the boards is to discuss differences in opinion on a subject. The boards would be very dull if all we posted was ,"Yes, you're right" to posts all of the time. Thanks. |
| Beamup05-11-04, 07:27 AM | I apologize for going overboard in my rhetoric. I have a distressing tendency to get nasty when I believe someone to be taking an unjustifiable position. It's something I try to control, but I have failed in this thread. So I apologize for any offense I have given and will strive to remain more civil. (I've also edited some posts to a more appropriate tone.) |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 09:36 AM | No problem Beamup, and no offence taken (I have a very thick skin). I said the following: Or you can willy nilly say poison magically killed you so death ward keeps you alive, disintegrate magically killed you so death ward keeps you alive, phantamal killer and weird all blocked, turned to copper and melted by a lightning bolt, yep you're dead but death ward protects you there too... No, I think I'll stick with the simplest interpretation of the rules. Death spells and death attacks thank you. To which you replied: Absolutely. And now I am totally lost in my understanding of your stance. If phantamal killer is not blocked by death ward - because it is clearly a spell that kills you and does not have the [Death] descriptor, why are you making special provision for Blasphemy?!? :confused: |
| Beamup05-11-04, 11:22 AM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster And now I am totally lost in my understanding of your stance. If phantamal killer is not blocked by death ward - because it is clearly a spell that kills you and does not have the [Death] descriptor, why are you making special provision for Blasphemy?!? It appears I was unclear. My "absolutely" referred to "I'll stick with the simplest interpretation of the rules. Death spells and death attacks thank you." Which, since weird and phantasmal killer are death attacks, would include them. The other effects you list are not death effects and would not be affected. The spell poison does not kill you - it infects you with a poison, the poison inflicts Con damage, and the Con damage kills you. Disintegrate doesn't kill you - it deals damage to you, and loss of HP kills you. Being turned to copper and melted by a lightning bolt is another form of "deals damage and loss of HP kills you." Simply put, a "magical death effect" (synonymous with "Death Attack") is any magical (supernatural, spell-like, spell, or potentially something else) effect with death as its direct effect. If death is indirect or the effect is nonmagical, death ward does not apply. The simplest interpretation of the rules. Death spells and death attacks only. No slippery slope. |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 02:12 PM | Just taking a note from WizO_Catoblepas... "Yes, Beamup is right." :D By any reading of Death Ward, it protects against death spells aka [Death] spells AND magical death effects. Now, the only argument is whether magical death affects are the same thing as death effects or not. However, since there is obviously a clear distinction between death spells and magical death effects in the spell listing, there probably is a clear distinction between two types of effects. |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 02:35 PM | So phantamal killer killing you with fright is not "indirect enough"? What if you fail the will save and succeed the fort save and the damage kills you - does death ward keep you alive? So where does destruction fit into your definition of magical death effect? That's holy fire, should be indirect enough right? And implosion? What degree of indirection is required to fit the bill? Do you think the [Death] descriptor is a pointless spell descriptor? Why do we have this descriptor if any spell that kills you is a magical death effect? |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 02:47 PM | Originally posted by Naeron The real problem with this spell is that it is far more effective against the party than against most monsters. Barring classed humanoids and outsiders (whose CR is generally no greater than their HD+3) the vast majority of monsters have far more HD than their CR, and therefore the likely caster level of anyone using one of these spells. However the converse is not true. So when a party faces a spell-caster their opponents caster level is often equal to or higher than the parties HD (especially if LA comes into play). So these spells can easily cripple a lot of PC's and there is little defence as SR is not that common for PC's. However the PC's fighting monsters will often find that the reverse is true and the monsters HD exceed their ability to affect the enemy using spells such as Blasphemy. A prepared Balor (CR20) has the capability to wipe out an 18th level party or lower, and yet is should be a "hard" fight not a prospective TPK. To affect multiple targets the spell really should allow a saving throw at the minimum. It IS a hard fight, but not an automatic TPK. I cannot see that ever happening with the rules as written. First off, I don't see an intellignet party all rushing up and attacking a balor. The wizard at that level should be keeping back and nuking the balor from orbit, the cleric should be summoning something, and only the fighter and rogue really need to charge up. The fighter and rogue should take the full brunt of this effect, and honestly, I don't see it as too great of a hindrance to them once the daze wears off. At the most, it buys the balor a free round, and gives an average 7 point penalty to weakness, which does not stack. And a balor really cannot kill an 18th level party with just one round. It might be able to deal out a painful amount of damage in one round, but barring a nat 20 critical hit, the party will be assured at least one round of action. And an 18th level party CAN kill off a balor in one round. The absolute best thing for the balor to do is to summon a ton of demons, and have them attack while it keeps casting blasphemy. However, that costs a round of action for the balor, and barring a really well setup surprise round, the PCs will be able to attack for a round or two, which is about all they need. |
| Beamup05-11-04, 02:51 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster So phantamal killer killing you with fright is not "indirect enough"? It's direct. The game effect is not fear, it is death. The fear is flavor text. What if you fail the will save and succeed the fort save and the damage kills you - does death ward keep you alive? No, that's death from loss of HP. So where does destruction fit into your definition of magical death effect? That's holy fire, should be indirect enough right? 3.5 destruction doesn't mention holy fire at all, and is in fact a [Death] spell. Was 3.0 different? Anyway, by either of our standards, destruction is covered. And implosion? Sure. What degree of indirection is required to fit the bill? If the only mechanical effect is "you die." This is the most lenient possible interpretation. A somewhat more stringent interpretation of "death effect" would require there to be no flavor-text explanation of cause - which would exclude such spells as phantasmal killer and implosion. Under either interpretation, the Killed effect of blasphemy is included. Do you think the [Death] descriptor is a pointless spell descriptor? Why do we have this descriptor if any spell that kills you is a magical death effect? Any spell that directly causes death is a magical death effect. [Death] spells are a subset of these. It would be entirely possible for an effect to specifically deal with [Death] spells, so it is hardly pointless, but it doesn't have any impact on death ward. If death ward said that it makes you immune to "death spells and supernatural or spell-like death effects" then no spell lacking the [Death] descriptor would be affected. But it specifies all magical death effects... and spells are indubitably magical effects. There just isn't any rules or grammatical support for interpreting "death spells" as exclusionary on "magical death effects" that I can find or that you have presented. |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 03:01 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster So phantamal killer killing you with fright is not "indirect enough"? What if you fail the will save and succeed the fort save and the damage kills you - does death ward keep you alive? So where does destruction fit into your definition of magical death effect? That's holy fire, should be indirect enough right? And implosion? What degree of indirection is required to fit the bill? Do you think the [Death] descriptor is a pointless spell descriptor? Why do we have this descriptor if any spell that kills you is a magical death effect? Oh, come on, are you intentionally missing the point? Oh, wait, yes you are, because by proving you wrong, we have given you less ammunition to pointlessly blast 3.5 and make you feel important. That makes sense. There are MANY things that the spell Death Ward blocks. TWO of those affects are spells with the [Death] descriptor, AND death effects that are caused by magic. Phantasmal Killer is clearly not a [Death] spell, but it clearly has a magical death effect. Hence, Death Ward would stop the death as a result of a failed Fort save. If the damage kills you, then the damage kills you. Just like you could be immune to the effects of Disintegration, make the Fort save against that, and die from the damage. Things like that happen. Destruction is CLEARLY a [Death] spell, and there is no mention of holy fire damage. So Death Ward would protect against the death effect, but would not stop against the damage. You could still die from that. The only thing Death Ward really stops is dying outright. |
| Beamup05-11-04, 03:07 PM | Originally posted by d_nychus Just like you could be immune to the effects of Disintegration, make the Fort save against that, and die from the damage. Actually the only effect of disintegrate is damage (well, there's a special-casing for what happens if the damage kills you) so death ward certainly does not apply. |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 03:32 PM | Actually, I was not claiming disintigrate is stopped by Death Ward, but that if you were somehow immune to the destruction of disintegrate, you could still die from the damage. |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 03:39 PM | The absolute best thing for the balor to do is to summon a ton of demons, and have them attack while it keeps casting blasphemy. However, that costs a round of action for the balor, and barring a really well setup surprise round, the PCs will be able to attack for a round or two, which is about all they need. How about dazing them all and tossing them around with quickened telekinisis causing damage and using it's attack of opportunity on the guy that is then moving through it's reach? Or tossing the stragglers not in the area of effect of the blashpemy into the area of effect? |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 03:46 PM | First off, moving them around like that would NOT provoke an AoO. To provoke an AoO, you have to purposely ignore your opponent by moving through their threat range intentionally. Second, barring halfling and gnome adventuring parties, one cannot affect more than one opponent per round at the most. Telekinesis could be useful, but in no way the best thing for the balor to do. |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 03:53 PM | Originally posted by Beamup It's direct. The game effect is not fear, it is death. The fear is flavor text. No, that's death from loss of HP. So then if protected by death ward it is a better option to fail your saving throw against phantasmal killer by your interpretation? Sure. Sure what? Does implosion fit the bill? Is it subject to be blocked by your interpretation of death ward or not? |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 04:00 PM | Originally posted by d_nychus First off, moving them around like that would NOT provoke an AoO. To provoke an AoO, you have to purposely ignore your opponent by moving through their threat range intentionally. Still more houserules I see. Mayhap you should read the movement sections of the PHB. Or perhaps gain a greater understanding of why improved bull rush is a good feat. I suggest the attacks of opportunity section as well. I see a labels of "intentional movement" on things. I do really. :rolleyes: |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 04:33 PM | What houserule? Again, you seem to take one specific exception and apply it to the entire game, which does not work. Bull rush specifically states that if the defender incurs an AoO along with the attacker when moving in a bull rush. It is listed as a specific exception. According to the section on AoOs, which shows what happens by default in the majority of cases, you have to make a move, not be moved. Anything else is either a houserule or a poor reading of the rules. Telekinesis could do a bull rush to inflict AoOs, but that would not cause any damage by itself, nor would you be able to affect more than one opponent at a time. |
| Beamup05-11-04, 04:58 PM | Originally posted by d_nychus Actually, I was not claiming disintigrate is stopped by Death Ward, but that if you were somehow immune to the destruction of disintegrate, you could still die from the damage. I guess I was confused by how you phrased it. Originally posted by DungeonMaster So then if protected by death ward it is a better option to fail your saving throw against phantasmal killer by your interpretation? Gray area. I'd probably conclude you take the damage if you are protected by death ward. I'll also point out that this question has nothing to do with my interpretation - under even the [Death]-only interpretation, the question arises with finger of death. Sure what? Does implosion fit the bill? Is it subject to be blocked by your interpretation of death ward or not? Yes, under the most liberal interpretation (which is the one I favor) it is blocked by death ward. Under the somewhat more stringent interpretation which I also feel is justifiable, it is not. As for Telekinesis and AoOs, you do not have to be "moving through their threat range intentionally." Simply moving out of a threatened square is sufficient, according to the PHB section on AoOs. Bull Rush has a note that the defender can provoke an AoO - this clearly implies that it is calling attention to the specific application of the general rule, not creating an exception. Since there is no rules text in the AoO section suggesting otherwise, any movement out of a threatened square provokes. Edit - I misunderstood what the Balor was trying to do. The Bull Rush effect wouldn't work, but the Violent Thrust effect would. |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 05:07 PM | I love discussing things with you D, it's always so entertaning to learn of your house-rules. SRD Combat I section: Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action Again, no mention of deliberate movement. You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge (see Charge, below). When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him. You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. Initiating a Bull Rush: First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender. (If you have the Improved Bull Rush feat, you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.) Any attack of opportunity made by anyone other than the defender against you during a bull rush has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting the defender instead, and any attack of opportunity by anyone other than you against the defender likewise has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting you. (When someone makes an attack of opportunity, make the attack roll and then roll to see whether the attack went astray.) Second, you and the defender make opposed Strength checks. You each add a +4 bonus for each size category you are larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for each size category you are smaller than Medium. You get a +2 bonus if you are charging. The defender gets a +4 bonus if he has more than two legs or is otherwise exceptionally stable. Bull Rush Results: If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result. You can’t, however, exceed your normal movement limit. (Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however.) If you fail to beat the defender’s Strength check result, you move 5 feet straight back to where you were before you moved into his space. If that space is occupied, you fall prone in that space. Absolutely no mention of the attacks of opportunity for being moved by a bull rush as a "special exception" to the rules. It's a "note" not an exception. The balor can daze with blasphemy and toss people around over and over smacking them with vorpality as much as he wants. |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 05:41 PM | Originally posted by Beamup Gray area. I'd probably conclude you take the damage if you are protected by death ward. I'll also point out that this question has nothing to do with my interpretation - under even the [Death]-only interpretation, the question arises with finger of death. Oh no it is highly relevant because you specifically place damage as not being protected by under "magical death effect". You are immune to death spells, not just the "death effect", death spells. So what we have now in your interpretation is as follows: 1- A descriptor that is meaningless because "magical death effect" is all encompasing. 2- Even spells which don't say "you die" or "death" in the description of the spell are blocked by deathward if they cause your existence to cease. 3- You are better off failing a fort save against a spell without [Death] in the descriptor because if you succeed you take damage which is not blocked by death ward while your demise is on the failed save. This is a convoluted interpretation that leads to the clearly moronic conclusion #3. Death spell means a spell with [Death] as a descriptor. "Magical death effect" means "death attack" per DMG rules and MM description like the bodak's stare: death, 30 feet. There is a distinction between the two. Spells without the descriptor that are likewise lethal - that cause death - are not death spells. The last line of deathward specifically states this and I quote: "or other effects ("magical" or not) that may be lethal". There is no logic, no mechanical and no grammatical problem or contradiction in the above bolded interpretation. |
| Beamup05-11-04, 06:13 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster Oh no it is highly relevant because you specifically place damage as not being protected by under "magical death effect". You are immune to death spells, not just the "death effect", death spells. Good point... and one which demonstrates exactly why the distinction between "death spells" and "magical death effects" is important, now that I think about it. The damage from finger of death is blocked. The damage from phantasmal killer is not. 1- A descriptor that is meaningless because "magical death effect" is all encompasing. Nope. As finger of death demonstrates (with your correction), it's quite relevant. 2- Even spells which don't say "you die" or "death" in the description of the spell are blocked by deathward if they cause your existence to cease. How much clearer do you want it said than "killing it" (implosion) or "die from fear?" The spell descriptions make quite clear that the effect is DEATH rather than anything else. Requiring that the word "die" or "death" be used rather than "kill" is nonsensical. The meaning of "the target dies" is identical to "the target is killed." 3- You are better off failing a fort save against a spell without [Death] in the descriptor because if you succeed you take damage which is not blocked by death ward while your demise is on the failed save. That is something you made up which I specifically stated was not the case. This is a convoluted interpretation that leads to the clearly moronic conclusion #3. Well, consider who's claiming #3 is implied (you) and who's saying it clearly is not (me) and think on the implications of your choice of adjective. Death spell means a spell with [Death] as a descriptor. "Magical death effect" means "death attack" per DMG rules and MM description like the bodak's stare: death, 30 feet. There is a distinction between the two. Spells without the descriptor that are likewise lethal - that cause death - are not death spells. The last line of deathward specifically states this and I quote: "or other effects ("magical" or not) that may be lethal". Death Attack includes such spells as power word: kill. This is exceedingly explicit. There is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for claiming it does not include phantasmal killer, since it does not discuss the [Death] descriptor or "death spells" at all. This is a point you have consistently been ignoring, clinging to your patently FALSE position that Death Attack can be only spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary, which is very explicitly in direct and total contradiction to what it says. There is no logic, no mechanical and no grammatical problem or contradiction in the above bolded interpretation. The contradiction comes in when you claim that "Death Attack" does not include spells when the section on Death Attack explicitly uses spells as examples. I will say it again: Death Attack includes spells. READ the section sometime. You can't possibly miss it. |
| DungeonMaster05-11-04, 07:57 PM | Originally posted by Beamup Good point... and one which demonstrates exactly why the distinction between "death spells" and "magical death effects" is important, now that I think about it. The damage from finger of death is blocked. The damage from phantasmal killer is not. If you claim this then you come to #3 which is the abysmally stupid situation that you're better off failing a save. That's plain ridiculous. Sorry, that really takes the cake for me. The spell descriptions make quite clear that the effect is DEATH rather than anything else. Completely wrong, it's a mind-affecting spell. You die from fear not it snuffing out your life-force. In fact it is a mind-affecting fear spell. Right there in the descriptor. Tell me now, do you even read the descriptors? Or were they just put there for the hell of it? Requiring that the word "die" or "death" be used rather than "kill" is nonsensical. The meaning of "the target dies" is identical to "the target is killed." You're the one ascribing more meaning to "die" and "dies" than I or anyone else. [Death] and "death" is what I'm ascribing meaning to. Well, consider who's claiming #3 is implied (you) and who's saying it clearly is not (me) and think on the implications of your choice of adjective. See above direct quote. :confused: Death Attack includes such spells as power word: kill. This is exceedingly explicit. There is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for claiming it does not include phantasmal killer, since it does not discuss the [Death] descriptor or "death spells" at all. Power word kill is a [DEATH] spell. You have nothing whatsoever to back up your interpretation that death from things not labeled as "death" are "death attacks". This is a point you have consistently been ignoring, clinging to your patently FALSE position that Death Attack can be only spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary, which is very explicitly in direct and total contradiction to what it says. I have never ever said anything about death attacks being only spell-like, supernatural or extroardinary. You are putting words in my mouth and misconstruing my statements. I challenge you to find a single line that states death attacks being only spell like, supernatural or extroadinary. I have just repeated over and over to you that [Death] spells are seperate from "magical death effects" and that there is a damn distinction between the two! You are immune to the whole damn [Death] spell and specifically immune to "death" effects labeled as such from magical origin. These magical death effects are clearly labeled "death" and are specifically not other effects that may be lethal - such as implosion, disintegration, fear, petrification and so forth. My tenet is the effects are labeled "death" and if there isn't a "death" label then you are not protected by death ward. If some monster had a "fear" gaze that caused you to "die" you would not be protected by death ward. The mind-numbingly simple point is you can't simply toss around "magical death effect" as anything that is directly lethal to your character. Even if the description says "you die". It is not necessarily a "death effect" - it needs a [Death] label as a spell and a "death" label as a supernatural, extroardinary or spell like ability. I can't make this any clearer and am getting very frustrate at this point. |
| Beamup05-11-04, 08:32 PM | Edit: Changed my mind. While much of what you claim I've said is totally inaccurate, I've come to the conclusion that it's at least credible to exclude anything that does not specifically use the term "Death." I still don't think it's right, but it's not something I'll argue against anymore. |
| d_nychus05-11-04, 09:03 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster I love discussing things with you D, it's always so entertaning to learn of your house-rules. You're the one with most houserules. You have to have them to have such a poor understanding of the game. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Again, no mention of deliberate movement. Absolutely no mention of the attacks of opportunity for being moved by a bull rush as a "special exception" to the rules. It's a "note" not an exception. The balor can daze with blasphemy and toss people around over and over smacking them with vorpality as much as he wants. Umm, again, where are you getting that being moved incurs an AoO from? The section that you pointed out in the first part merely states that if you move-- note, if YOU move, not are moved or forced to move-- out of an opponents threatened ranged, you take an AoO. A move is a conscious action made by you on your turn. There is no other useage of the word move in D&D. Even bull rushing does not 'move' an opponent. It 'pushes him back' until it gets to the little blurb in the parentheses. The only time it states the term 'move' IN the bull rush section is when describing how it incurs AoOs, and it describes it in such a way as to be something that is out of the ordinary. There is nothing in the rules to support AoOs being incurred for movement outside of your turn, save for the sole exception of the bull rush manuever. What next, you going to say that being tripped incurs an AoO because you were moved 5 feet downward? |
| J. Grenemyer05-12-04, 05:04 AM | Yawn… :rolleyes: Originally posted by DungeonMaster Even if the description says "you die". It is not necessarily a "death effect" - it needs a [Death] label as a spell and a "death" label as a supernatural, extraordinary or spell like ability. About 80% wrong. First, the easy one: The comments about Supernatural and Spell Like abilities are correct, but the one about Extraordinary abilities is not. Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical (see the DMG). Whether or not the words (or “labels”, as DungeonMaster puts it) “death,” “kill” or “slay” or some variation of such is included in a Death dealing extraordinary ability's description is irrelevant; Deathward won’t protect against it because it is not magical. Second, let’s define “Dead” as it appears in the Core Rules: Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to –10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The terminology for Deathward is equally simple: The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects. So, whenever a character faces a spell with the [Death] descriptor or is subject to a magical death effect that would kill him outright, Deathward applies. This means spells like Blasphemy and Phantasmal Killer are thwarted by Deathward because they clearly say they instantly kill their target if successful, while spells like Fireball and Disintegrate are not thwarted since these later spells do not say they instantly kill or slay. Further, “Death Attack” as found in the DMG under Abilities and Conditions is effectively a subset of “Magical Death Effect,” as “Death Attack” refers to abilities such as those possessed by Assassins. The trick to comprehending DungeonMaster’s position is realizing he is relying on an unspoken conclusion resulting from an apparent (to him) paradox, which is: The PHB lists several spells that kill and/or slay outright, but not all of these spells have the [Death] descriptor. Since it is illogical for spells that kill to not have such a descriptor, those spells must not be true death effects. One more thing (@d_nychus): Whether you announce your character is taking a move action himself, or something else does his moving for him, your character is still considered to have let his or her guard down enough to draw an AoA from anyone whose threatened area he moved through. This does not mean a Balor TKing a PC around a Dungeon room can earn a free AoA for moving said PC through his threatened area on his turn, but any minions whose threatened areas the PC is moved through could legally take a whack at him. This has been a constant since 3.0. :D PS: Still working on a formal reply… |
| DungeonMaster05-12-04, 10:07 AM | Originally posted by d_nychus Umm, again, where are you getting that being moved incurs an AoO from? The section that you pointed out in the first part merely states that if you move-- note, if YOU move, not are moved or forced to move-- out of an opponents threatened ranged, you take an AoO. Nope. You're not reading that passage - there is no "you". It says plain as day moving out of a threatened square. A move is a conscious action made by you on your turn. There is no other useage of the word move in D&D. Even bull rushing does not 'move' an opponent. It 'pushes him back' until it gets to the little blurb in the parentheses. There is nothing at all about conscious actions being made on your turn in the attack of opportunity section. Not a drop, not a whiff, nothing. There is explicit mention in bull rush about movement, not "pushing him back" or other crap. I will again highlight the appropriate section because you're not reading The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved . So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however. That's it that's all folks. Being "pushed around" counts as "movement". The only time it states the term 'move' IN the bull rush section is when describing how it incurs AoOs, and it describes it in such a way as to be something that is out of the ordinary. No it isn't "out of the ordinary" - it's a reinforcement of the actual rules that you're desperately trying to ignore in favor of your houserules. That's why it's a "note" and not an "exception". What next, you going to say that being tripped incurs an AoO because you were moved 5 feet downward? Read the rules again. Movement out of a threatened square. If you're tripped you're still in the same square. |
| DungeonMaster05-12-04, 10:31 AM | Originally posted by J. Grenemyer First, the easy one: The comments about Supernatural and Spell Like abilities are correct, but the one about Extraordinary abilities is not. If there was such as thing as an Ex death ability it would likewise be labeled "death". There are none to my knowledge. It would be a death attack in that case and yes, death ward would not protect you against it. This means spells like Blasphemy and Phantasmal Killer are thwarted by Deathward because they clearly say they instantly kill their target if successful, while spells like Fireball and Disintegrate are not thwarted since these later spells do not say they instantly kill or slay. This is so frustrating. This has become my 1st candidate for revision in a future edition - make the distinction between a "lethal" attack and a "death" attack. Phantasmal killer, implosion, blasphemy all kill you. They are lethal - you die. They are not "death attacks". They have no [Death] descriptor. Something can kill you outright and not, I repeat, NOT be a death attack! Deathward does NOT protect you against effects that may be lethal . Specifically! Last line of the spell. These descriptors mean something. Control Undead is not a [mind-affecting] spell because Undead are specifically immune to [mind-affecting] things. Even though it is for all intents and purposes much like controling their "minds". The trick to comprehending DungeonMaster’s position is realizing he is relying on an unspoken conclusion resulting from an apparent (to him) paradox, which is: The PHB lists several spells that kill and/or slay outright, but not all of these spells have the [Death] descriptor. Since it is illogical for spells that kill to not have such a descriptor, those spells must not be true death effects. This is not a paradox - you my friend get into paradox when you have warded creatures that are better off failing their save against phantasmal killer than succeeding. Because if they fail their save, they don't die but if they succeed they take damage which might kill them. That's downright stupid. It is not at all illogical to die from fright, implosion, or other sources of outright demise that are not death attacks. This does not mean a Balor TKing a PC around a Dungeon room can earn a free AoA for moving said PC through his threatened area on his turn, but any minions whose threatened areas the PC is moved through could legally take a whack at him. This has been a constant since 3.0. Ok, we're much better off with this houserule, but why exactly does the balor not get the AoO? |
| Beamup05-12-04, 11:00 AM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster IThis is so frustrating. This has become my 1st candidate for revision in a future edition - make the distinction between a "lethal" attack and a "death" attack. Well, I think everyone can agree that this thread thorougly demonstrates that the way it is currently written is quite unclear! |
| DungeonMaster05-12-04, 12:39 PM | Agreed 100%. There are so many ways to "die" in D&D there should be a clear section on categorisation much like magical bonuses are categorised into "morale", "inherent" and so forth. Life force snuffing, petrification, disolved, disintegration, fear, implosion, etc.. with a clear section on each. Kind of morbid but necessary. :P |
| Fenris_CGA05-12-04, 02:46 PM | Dungeonmaster, it seems you missed something regarding the AOO/telekinesis question. I'll repost what you yourself quoted from the SRD, but with some extra bolding of my own: SRD Combat I section: Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action I read that first sentence, and I see that provoking an AOO requires using an action, either a move action used to move, or a standard action to do some other things not relevant to this discussion. Since you cannot perform a move action when it is not your turn, you cannot incur an AOO from movement that happens when it is not your turn, in this case telekinesis. |
| J. Grenemyer05-12-04, 02:52 PM | Good Morning, Originally posted by DungeonMaster If there was such as thing as an Ex death ability it would likewise be labeled "death". There are none to my knowledge. It would be a death attack in that case and yes, death ward would not protect you against it. Abilities that are not spells but kill outright do not get a “death” label whatsoever, because descriptors apply only to spells (and by extension SLAs). I’m going to have to reverse myself from earlier. An Assassin’s death attack is not typed as either Ex., Su., or an SLA,. yet the DMG clearly states Deathward protects against it (see the definition for “Death Attack”). Thus, even though the effect is non-magical in nature and Deathward’s text does not mention the term “Death Attack”, Deathward can stop it. Originally posted by DungeonMaster This is so frustrating. This has become my 1st candidate for revision in a future edition - make the distinction between a "lethal" attack and a "death" attack. Why? The Core Rules already make that distinction. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Phantasmal killer, implosion, blasphemy all kill you. They are lethal - you die. They are not "death attacks". They have no [Death] descriptor. Please point to that part of the definition for “Death Attack” (as found in the 3.5 DMG page 292) that says only spells with a [Death] descriptor are considered “Death Attacks”. There’s your paradox, by the way. Anyway, it’s important to note that the term “Death Attack” is not in Deathward’s spell description whatsoever. However, the term is relevant because it’s definition says Deathward protects against the wide variety of abilities it describes. SRD definition follows: DEATH ATTACKS In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly. • Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack. • Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive. • In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has –10 hit points. • The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks. The DMG further clarifies this by giving a variety of spell and creature abilities as examples. Now then, by DungeonMaster’s own reasoning Phantasmal Killer, Implosion and Blasphemy all KILL there target. To instantly Kill something in DnD is to give it the “Dead” condition defined in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. So, once we rid ourselves of the unsupported claim that only spells with the [Death] descriptor are death attacks, and instead objectively consider what the phrase “magical death effects” means, we see that the three spells listed above match the criteria of the phrase; they are magical effects that specifically say (in their spell text, no less) that they cause instant death by killing their target. Therefore, Deathward protects against those spells. Easy. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Something can kill you outright and not, I repeat, NOT be a death attack! ". Correct, so long as you’re dealing enough damage to bring a character’s HP to -10 or deal enough damage to bring his Con score to 0 (see the DMG definition for Dead). If the rules are calling for damage to be dealt, then they’re not calling out an instant death effect or otherwise do not say, “This effect kills its target.” Everything else in the game that does not deal damage to Con or HP, but also kills you when it’s effect resolves slays you instantly and is always magical in nature (save for an Assassin’s attack, which is untyped). Thus, Deathward applies. But this was already covered above anyway. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Deathward does NOT protect you against effects that may be lethal . Specifically! Last line of the spell. Let’s re-phrase that to actually match the spell. Deathward does not protect you against other sorts of attacks that are lethal. Other attacks that might be lethal are those that deal damage to HP and ability scores. There are no other attacks that kill instantly that are not magical in nature, except for an Assassin’s attack (which itself fits Death Attack’s definition and so is covered by Death Ward). Originally posted by DungeonMaster This is not a paradox - you my friend get into paradox when you have warded creatures that are better off failing their save against phantasmal killer than succeeding. Because if they fail their save, they don't die but if they succeed they take damage which might kill them. That's downright stupid. Yes, what I wrote in my last post was a paradox, particularly since it leads to a line of reasoning that requires substituting “magical death effect” with an exceptionally narrow reading of both “death attack” and the [Death] descriptor in order to support itself. As to the statements about Phantasmal Killer: It’s not a paradox, but a quirk of the linear progression of the rules. For the record: Note that Deathward gives a character the option to voluntarily fail his Fortitude save in order to avoid both death and damage if he makes his first Will save. If he fails his Will save, Deathward keeps him from dieing if he also fails his Fort save (which is the whole point, for those keeping score). Which is really just another way of saying you’re picking nits with the rules and not providing any evidence to back your claims. Let’s try and focus more on the subject, whadya say? Originally posted by DungeonMaster It is not at all illogical to die from fright, implosion, or other sources of outright demise that are not death attacks. Still waiting for actual Core Rules text as proof…. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Ok, we're much better off with this houserule, but why exactly does the balor not get the AoO? I consider direct implications that I’m “making up rules” to be harassment, which I do not appreciate since it implies that I am lying. Please re-read Catoblepas last warning before you post, thanks. :rolleyes: As to your question: It depends on whether or not the Balor is using the Violent Thrust ability of TK, or using the Sustained Force ability of TK. If the former, no concentration is required (because the effect is listed as instantaneous) so the Balor can make an AoA. If the later, the Balor must actively concentrate to maintain the spell, which means you don’t threaten the area around you. :P |
| Someone05-12-04, 03:59 PM | I'm of of two divergent thoughts here.... On one hand, its safe to say that deathwardprotects you against anything that would kill you without doing damage. In effect, the spell allows you to automaticly pass the save to avoid being killed outright, even if a save isn't normally allowed. It should probably be in the abjuration school, not necro. On the other hand, deathwardis a more powerful negative energy protection, so it protects against the negative energy trying to snuf out the character's life force. Blasphemyis unholy energy, not negative, so deathwardis no defense. As a side note, blasphemyis a sonic spell. Silencestops it. |
| J. Grenemyer05-12-04, 04:04 PM | Hi, Originally posted by Someone As a side note, blasphemyis a sonic spell. Silencestops it. Ack! You let the cat out of the bag. I was going to use just that little spell to show how absurd a claim it is to say Blasphemy hurling Half-Fiends can wipe out whole 20th level parties. Oh well. :( :D |
| DungeonMaster05-12-04, 04:09 PM | Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Abilities that are not spells but kill outright do not get a “death” label whatsoever, because descriptors apply only to spells (and by extension SLAs). Read the bodak's stare. Compare with the sea hag's evil eye. Conclusion: you're very wrong. Some attacks have "death" in it, others don't. The assassin's death attack is labeled a "death attack". Not a fear effect, not a kill you attack, not a lethal attack - a death attack. D-E-A-T-H. What more did you want? Please point to that part of the definition for “Death Attack” (as found in the 3.5 DMG page 292) that says only spells with a [Death] descriptor are considered “Death Attacks”. Please point to a single damn example that spells without a [Death] descriptor are considered "death attacks". All I'm asking for is one. Not many, just one. So, once we rid ourselves of the unsupported claim that only spells with the [Death] descriptor are death attacks, and instead objectively consider what the phrase “magical death effects” means, we see that the three spells listed above match the criteria of the phrase; they are magical effects that specifically say (in their spell text, no less) that they cause instant death by killing their target. So once we rid ourself of the unsupported claim that any spell that is lethal to the character from sources other than damage is a magical death effect, we quickly realise that descriptors and labels have meanings - particularly with how they they interact with other spells and abilities (definition of descriptor in the PHB). These 3 spells do not match the criterion for death attacks, they kill you for sure but you can be brought back with a raise dead from phantamal killer and deathward will not avail you against a mind-affecting fear spell that has as one potential side affect to kill you. Nor will it help you against a hag's evil eye or against an implosion spell. None of these are DEATH effects, they kill you for sure, but they're not death effects. Immunity to fear will certainly help you against the hag's killing fear as will a paladin standing close by against the phantasmal killer. As to the statements about Phantasmal Killer: It’s not a paradox, but a quirk of the linear progression of the rules. For the record: Note that Deathward gives a character the option to voluntarily fail his Fortitude save in order to avoid both death and damage if he makes his first Will save. If he fails his Will save, Deathward keeps him from dieing if he also fails his Fort save (which is the whole point, for those keeping score). "linear progression of the rules"? More like "silly interpretation leading to silly result". I can't beleive you think that's a "feature". Failing your save is better when targeted by non-death magic that kills you is a "feature"? That is, again, ridiculous. Consider it what you like, it's still ridiculous in my mind. Which is really just another way of saying you’re picking nits with the rules and not providing any evidence to back your claims. Let’s try and focus more on the subject, whadya say? For someone who has absolutely nothing to support his claims that deathward protects you from a mind-affecting fear spell or a fear ability that kills you like the hag's evil eye you're taking a big leap of convidence in your lack of evidence there. All I see in Deathward are spells and abilities with "death" tied to them. I consider direct implications that I’m “making up rules” to be harassment, which I do not appreciate since it implies that I am lying. Please re-read Catoblepas last warning before you post, thanks. I have no idea how you can randomly say "I consider such and such harassment". I havn't "accused" you of anything but your own un-supported interpretation of the rules - houserules. Catoblepas is free to tell me this is "harassment" but by the CoC I certainly can't see that fitting the bill. I certainly don't think I should write "unsupported interpretation of the rules" every time it comes up. If necessary I will do it, would be a pain though. Ok then we're in agreement for the balor - I always meant violent thrust version but never clarified. :P |
| DungeonMaster05-12-04, 04:19 PM | Fenris, if it said a move-action, then we would be 100% in agreement. As it stands it says an action - and that is not necessarily the person moving, it can be someone or something else moving him. Say some kobolds are sitting on ledge underhanging a cliff - they are aware of a battle above them between a fighter and a giant. The giant sends the fighter sprawling with it's awesome blow (or whatever it is called in 3.5) rolling over the edge of the cliff. He falls past the kobolds - do they get attacks of opportunity? As long as they are aware, not flat footed in other words, I say hell yes. The rules say moving through a threatened square - not move-actions through a threatened square. |
| bitnine05-12-04, 04:30 PM | Hm, I remember mentioning to folk writing up their own spells (before 3.5 came out) that dazing without a saving throw was a particular thing that set off my bitnine sense. As it stands, I'm not feeling the blasphemy dazery particularly when combined with critters with blasphemy at will or even 3/day, moreso with critters with a caster level above their CR like a hezrou or something. Definately ain't feelin' it. |
| J. Grenemyer05-12-04, 04:46 PM | You’re just not getting it, and neither am I. A spell does not have to qualify as a “Death Attack” in order for Deathward to protect against it. It need only be a “magical death effect,” where the word “death” in that phrase does not mean “only Death Attacks”. Moving on… :rolleyes: |
| spadehammerfist05-12-04, 04:50 PM | Gosh! What have I started here... However, I do think that perhaps we have strayed a bit off what my original point was... ...err. What was it again? Oh, yes. Blasphemy RAW is over powered. Just the fact that a properly DMed major clerical baddy is going to be higher level than the PCs and will nearly always have mini-onions, means that being automatically dazed for even one round is enough for a TPK. By that I don't mean, definitely a TPK, but the cleric and his mini-onions should have tactics based around their abilities. So: Cleric casts Blasphemy (PCs dazed, possible kills of cohorts, followers or animal friends - gosh, I've only just thought aboout this - familiars, animal companions and mounts!) Then fighters have attacks (probably using power attacks, trips, sunders, disarms, etc - yes they can use them normally, but they can do these while the PCs are dazed even if they don't have the relevant feats, as they won't draw any AoOs) Rogues get Flanking Sneak Attacks on dazed PCs (again, they can do this normally, but it's easier when your target can't make a 5 ft step, or ready a move away from you) Wizards get to place their spells without any need to cast defensively (out come the touch spells) AND the cleric then casts Blasphemy again (if possible) or some other spell (e.g. healing, Harm, Slay Living, etc) Now, I don't mean to say that the NPCs shouldn't be prepared to kill PCs, I think they definitely should (I play in an extremely high powered DM-altered version of Rappan Athuk - we're all 21+, with on average 1 artifact each). However, I think when a NPC/Monster has an ability or spell that has this much possibility for over kill, then it should be tempered. Interestingly enough, I thought that about Mordenkainen's Disjunction, and since then my archmage has come up with a spell that restores item that have been disjoined... Everybody's points about Deathward have been a bit beside the point, as it is the daze part of the spell that scares me in the middle of a combat... how do you protect against that? |
| Kyuketsukiouji05-12-04, 05:04 PM | Mind Blank, maybe? Anything that gives immunity to mind effects stops daze, doesn't it? |
| spadehammerfist05-12-04, 05:20 PM | Now I know that someone is going to say that, yes, normally daze is a [Mind-Affecting] spell, but that the daze part of Blasphemy is still [Evil, Sonic]. It is that sort of thinking that has caused all the difficulties in understanding the spell Deathward. The use of descriptors should be very specific, but unfortunately it is not... Perhaps it is the very descriptor that is the problem. If we look at the effects of the other word spells (Dictum, Holy Word and Word of Chaos) they are definitely linked to you hearing a divine word. In the first instance they deafen you, and so it makes sense that they have the [Sonic] descriptor, and are therefore defeated by the liberal use of Silence spells. But then we have Blasphemy, that doesn't deafen, the only one out of four extremely similar spells that doesn't . It dazes, does that imply that it is different? Do we think that that sounds more like a [Mind-Affecting] spell? But, if 3 of 4 spells are [Sonic], then the fourth MUST be, yes? Oh, to be a game designer and be able to decide these things for yourself... |
| TrueExodite05-12-04, 05:47 PM | Originally posted by J. Grenemyer An Assassin's death attack is not typed as either Ex., Su., or an SLA,. yet the DMG clearly states Deathward protects against it (see the definition for "Death Attack"). Unfortunately I have to rely on the SRD, do you have a quote of the relevant passage? Originally posted by J. Grenemyer DEATH ATTACKS In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly. · Raise dead doesn't work on someone killed by a death attack. · Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive. · In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points. · The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks. The DMG further clarifies this by giving a variety of spell and creature abilities as examples. ... There are no other attacks that kill instantly that are not magical in nature, except for an Assassin's attack (which itself fits Death Attack's definition and so is covered by Death Ward). Actually it doesn't. Reading the ability of an Assassins Death Attack it seems to work just as in 3.0. That is, you can still be raised normally. The Assassins Death Attack thus fails to satisfy the first criteria of a death attack acording to the quote above. In fact, looking through the available material it seems the whole [Death]/death attack/death effects business is FUBAR. I haven't been able to find any passage that specifies that spells with the [Death] descriptor prevents a character from being raised, only that death effects do. However, since the definition of a death effect requires the ability to deny raising we have a circular argument. A death effect is an effect which prevents raising. Being prevented from being raised is an effect of a death effect. So unless a spell or ability, even one with the [Death] desriptor, specifically mentions that it doesn't allow the victim to be raised or that it is, in fact, a death effect it isn't. Which means that there isn't any death effects, or at least I haven't found any. My conclusion = FUBAR. My opinion sides mostly with DungeonMaster though. IMC spells with the [Death] desriptor will automatically be designated as death effects as well as a select few others, the Assassins Death Attack and the Bodaks Death Gaze for example. This will include the 'killed' part of Blashpemy but neither Implosion nor Phantasmal Killer. Anyway, the obvious soutions to Blasphemy would be to exchange Dazed with Deafened. The problems with caster level is a behemoth unto itself and not really specific to Blasphemy. For some incredibly stupid reason monster HD arent always in the range of their CR. Fair enough in some ways but this wreaks havoc when caster levels, as well as other special abilities, are based on HD rather than CR. Spell Resistance is based on CR, why not Caster Level? Further problems comes with items and special abilities, IMHO the Karma beads and their ilk should never have been printed, the Ioun Stone needs errata and Spell Power need be considered when designing the spells in question. There's no quick-and-easy fix. |
| TrueExodite05-12-04, 05:52 PM | Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Mind Blank, maybe? Anything that gives immunity to mind effects stops daze, doesn't it? No, unfortunately not. The Dazed condition isn't, in itself, a mind-affecting condition though is mostly caused by mind-effecting effects. You'll note that creature typs normally immune to mind-affecting effects usually can't be Dazed either. However, that is a separatly listed immunity as, as noted above, being Dazed isn't a mind-affecting condition. I do think it should be, along with a couple of others. |
| TrueExodite05-12-04, 06:06 PM | Stupidity on my part, ignore. |
| d_nychus05-12-04, 07:11 PM | Originally posted by DungeonMaster Fenris, if it said a move-action, then we would be 100% in agreement. As it stands it says an action - and that is not necessarily the person moving, it can be someone or something else moving him. It's funny how 100% wrong you are. A move-action is not a move. A move is a type of move action in which your character moves his speed. Refer to page 142 of the PHB. Saying move-action would not make any sense. The only type of move action that incurs an AoO automatically is moving out of an opponent's threatened space. And a move is a defined action in D&D. The fact of the matter is that you HAVE to move on your turn. It does not matter if you are moved, pushed back, knocked back, or whatever, that is not a move by game terms. And only a move incurs an AoO, not being moved, pushed back, knocked back, or whatever. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Say some kobolds are sitting on ledge underhanging a cliff - they are aware of a battle above them between a fighter and a giant. The giant sends the fighter sprawling with it's awesome blow (or whatever it is called in 3.5) rolling over the edge of the cliff. He falls past the kobolds - do they get attacks of opportunity? Of course not. He did not move. He WAS moved. Originally posted by DungeonMaster As long as they are aware, not flat footed in other words, I say hell yes. The rules say moving through a threatened square - not move-actions through a threatened square. Then you would be wrong. Not unusual. |
| J. Grenemyer05-12-04, 11:55 PM | Hello, I'm done with this thread and these boards for the forseeable future. Good luck everyone. |
| DungeonMaster05-14-04, 10:24 AM | Originally posted by d_nychus A move-action is not a move. LOL. No, I'm pretty sure a move is considered a move-action. :rofl: Moving does not imply a move action or a move. You can have the action of moving someone provoke the attack of opportunity. That reads very clearly from the rules - not "your own action of moving only provokes attacks of opportunities" - that's your houserules to what's written. And only a move incurs an AoO, not being moved, pushed back, knocked back, or whatever. Nope, the text is quoted, all you need to be is moving out of a threatened square. The action does not need to be your own. Bull rush is the precedent for this and you have yet to supply even a single instance of precedent. Not unusual. Maybe we should take this discussion to another thread? |