| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sabre |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 16:07:43
we have been running a campaign for nearly 3 months now and our adventure came to a dilemma.
on the way we run into a death slaad protecting a holy ground and we have to overcome him to get access into the temple grounds.
deaths slaad used his implosion spell-like ability on the fighter of the group who was protected with death ward spell
now i know that the implosion spell is not a death description spell but an evocation; but players handbook defines a death attack as an attack instantly slays the target just like the implosion spell's description.
so does the death ward spell protect the fighter or not against the implosion or should we start looking for a way to restore the fighter or try to find another warrior...
any thoughts and comments are welcomed
thank you all already... |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 05 Mar 2009 : 02:56:02
quote:
Originally posted by Zucrous
I hadnt considered power word kill btw, nice catch.
I just went through the PHB spells, and it's the only death spell that is not a necromancy spell, so I'm not sure how strong a case that really makes.
quote:
As long as we are going down that route, why is phantasmal killer not a [death] spell? or weird for that matter? They are similar effects.
Yeah. Bringing in implosion opens the door for that argument. Unless it is limited to necromantic spells, though, then it seems arbitrary to include some but not all of those spells that slay outright. I suggested reasons above for not including phantasmal killer and cloudkill, but I'm not entirely convinced by them.
quote:
I think that pwk, is described as an enchantment spell 1st, but the necromancy effect from the enchantment.
There's no mention of necromancy at all in that spell. It's odd that they included it in the death spells, given that others were left out. I thought perhaps it was a relic from 2e, but in that edition the spell was Conjuration/Summoning.
quote:
A [death] Spell is something that by its very nature kills living creatures. That is why death ward is so specific. It is a spell that purposefully counteracts the effects of negative energy.
If we went purely by the description of death ward, that would be the logical conclusion. It's the DMG description of death attacks and the statement that death ward protects against them that trips me up.
quote:
The necromancy description in the phb describes it as a school of magic that manipulate the power of death.
Technically, it says "death, unlife, and the life force," so one can argue that it is warding the life force, not just from necromantic spells, but from any spell that would snuff it out like a candle.
quote:
So a spell like death ward in its creation must have been made to counteract the effects of the necromancy school. It is very conveniant and nice that pwk gets wrapped up in that
I would say it is inconvenient. It would have been a lot clearer to me, at least, if they had left it out. 
quote:
I think you are looking at death effects very loosely and getting away from the core of the spell itself.
Very possible.
quote:
the designers I am sure let the description slide a little so that we could use our own judgement on things
Damn them. 
|
| Zucrous |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 22:19:58
I hadnt considered power word kill btw, nice catch. As long as we are going down that route, why is phantasmal killer not a [death] spell? or weird for that matter? They are similar effects.
I think that pwk, is described as an enchantment spell 1st, but the necromancy effect from the enchantment. If they had duel spell school spells when the phb had come out it may very well fallen into that category. A [death] Spell is something that by its very nature kills living creatures. That is why death ward is so specific. It is a spell that purposefully counteracts the effects of negative energy. The necromancy description in the phb describes it as a school of magic that manipulate the power of death. So a spell like death ward in its creation must have been made to counteract the effects of the necromancy school. It is very conveniant and nice that pwk gets wrapped up in that and im sure for a reason. I think you are looking at death effects very loosely and getting away from the core of the spell itself. A death attack I would think would be anything like a deathwalker's finger of death spell-like ability. Cant think of any more off the top of my head for monsters, but the designers I am sure let the description slide a little so that we could use our own judgement on things, if you think implosion is a death spell I am glad that you feel that way, that is what dnd 3.5 was all about, the ability to make up your own mind. But I do agree with you that it does leave alot to be interpreted. Any official ruling would be nice. Now I wanna know why an implosion spell would kill an ooze? (go raith) |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 20:36:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
I understand what you are saying, and maybe you are right. In my campaign, death ward protects from spell with the death descriptor, period (and inflict spells and effects stated in the spell description). No death descriptior? FORT Saving throw please  .
Well, that's one way to rule on it, and it has the advantage of being very easy to adjudicate. It would be nice to find an official ruling on the question, maybe an exhaustive list of what qualifies as death attacks. I think that for myself I would do the same thing but I would add "[Death]" to the description of implosion.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 18:14:22
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
A death spell is one that has the [Death] descriptor. That's pretty clear. The question is what constitutes a death attack. The DMG (p. 292) states that death ward protects against all death attacks, and it gives a description for what a death attack is. The description does not say that only spells which have the [Death] descriptor are death attacks. It says that death attacks are attacks that slay instantly. Since it doesn't give an exhaustive list of which attacks fall into this category (unfortunately), some interpretation is required. If two saving throws are needed, does that make it not instantly? If it only slays low hit die creatures, but does ability damage to higher ones, can it still be said to slay instantly? Those are open questions. A spell that slays instantly with but a single saving throw, like implosion, however, seems like a very clear cut case to me.
I understand what you are saying, and maybe you are right. In my campaign, death ward protects from spell with the death descriptor, period (and inflict spells and effects stated in the spell description). No death descriptior? FORT Saving throw please . |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 18:00:15
A death spell is one that has the [Death] descriptor. That's pretty clear. The question is what constitutes a death attack. The DMG (p. 292) states that death ward protects against all death attacks, and it gives a description for what a death attack is. The description does not say that only spells which have the [Death] descriptor are death attacks. It says that death attacks are attacks that slay instantly. Since it doesn't give an exhaustive list of which attacks fall into this category (unfortunately), some interpretation is required. If two saving throws are needed, does that make it not instantly? If it only slays low hit die creatures, but does ability damage to higher ones, can it still be said to slay instantly? Those are open questions. A spell that slays instantly with but a single saving throw, like implosion, however, seems like a very clear cut case to me.
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 17:57:10
No need to worry about it in 4E though .... |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 17:02:55
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
Such a complicated thing. So conditions negate it being death then (or in part)?
I don't think so, I just wanted to point that if cloudkill is not a death spell because its effect is conditionnal, then it should be the same for implosion. As stated above, my definition of a death spell is different. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 16:56:15
Such a complicated thing. So conditions negate it being death then (or in part)? |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 16:03:32
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
Phantasmal killer allows two saves, and the effect of cloudkill is conditional upon the number of hit die. Their cases don't seem as straight forward to me as implosion.
Implosion too has a condition; the target must have a physical form. Yes the odds are likely that it will fulfil that condition, but it is a level 9 spell. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 15:55:09
Phantasmal killer allows two saves, and the effect of cloudkill is conditional upon the number of hit die. Their cases don't seem as straight forward to me as implosion.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 14:57:48
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
Would WEIRD be considered a death attack spell (illusion spell)?
or cloud kill? (conjuration)
IMO no to both. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 14:46:22
Would WEIRD be considered a death attack spell (illusion spell)? |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 14:32:03
quote:
Originally posted by Raelan
As far as disintegrate goes, it would depend on which edition you're playing. If you're playing 3.5, it got revamped to inflict 2d6 damage per caster level on a failed save (max 40d6) and 5d6 on a successful save. That made it possible to, ahem, only be partially disintegrated. It also removed disintegrate entirely from the running for being a death effect.
You are right. I had forgotten about that. Disintegrate is definitely out.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
An implosion spell does not kill you, it makes you implode which will kil you. As opposed to finger of death, power word: kill, circle of death where you don't implode, burn, melt, or evaporate all moisture of your body, you just die. I think that simple fact may help separate a death spell from a powerful non-death spell.
I don't think that works as an explanation. Just because it describes the mechanism by which you die doesn't mean it's any less a death spell than power word kill. It's a save or die spell which is how death attacks are described. There's no other effect besides death: no hit point damage, or ability damage, or anything else.
quote:
I do not think that death ward should protect you from implosion, desintegrate or a vorpal sword for that reason.
Although the vorpal sword also does hit point damage, the instant kill ability is save or die, and is bestowed on the sword by a spell that is blocked by death ward. This situation is no different from an arrow of slaying, which is specifically mentioned in the DMG as a death attack that is blocked by death ward.
quote:
That and the use a negative energy, which I think is not limited to necromancy, like power word: kill.
There's nothing in the description of power word kill that says it uses negative energy. It is a mind-affecting spell, essentially a super-duper command.
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 12:44:19
Just like fireball or magic missile. The end result can be death, but not always. Just much more likely. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 12:38:28
ok my next statement might seem weird, but it's just a guess: An implosion spell does not kill you, it makes you implode which will kil you. As opposed to finger of death, power word: kill, circle of death where you don't implode, burn, melt, or evaporate all moisture of your body, you just die. I think that simple fact may help separate a death spell from a powerful non-death spell. IMO, for 99.9% of the Faerunians, meteor swarm could be considered a death spell. Just a thought, as for most mortal who require a physical form, an implosion can be considered the same. For that reason, someone (non-undead) could be protected from implosion if he just managed to lose the need of a physical body, like in gaseous form.
I do not think that death ward should protect you from implosion, desintegrate or a vorpal sword for that reason.
That and the use a negative energy, which I think is not limited to necromancy, like power word: kill. |
| Raelan |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 09:14:38
I've also wondered this, largely for selfish reasons (the character I started playing in the mid 90's used a wish from a luck blade to achieve an "entirely successful" result when drinking Halaster's Quaff back in the good ol' 2nd Edition days; i.e. he's immune to death effects).
As far as disintegrate goes, it would depend on which edition you're playing. If you're playing 3.5, it got revamped to inflict 2d6 damage per caster level on a failed save (max 40d6) and 5d6 on a successful save. That made it possible to, ahem, only be partially disintegrated. It also removed disintegrate entirely from the running for being a death effect. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 04 Mar 2009 : 03:12:28
Both the PHB and DMG descriptions of death attacks define them as attacks that slay instantly, that is, they don't do hit point damage or ability damage, they simply kill the character outright. By all rights implosion should be included that category.
In the DMG arrows of slaying are specifically mentioned as death attacks, so I assume that a vorpal sword would also be one. It is created using the spell circle of death, which has the [Death] descriptor.
A critical hit does hit point damage, which may or may not result in death. That doesn't make it a death attack, though, or any attack capable of doing 4 hp of damage would be a death attack for a first level wizard with no Con bonus. Again death attacks do not do hp damage, they simply slay, like implosion.
The [Death] descriptor is not limited to necromantic spells. Power word kill is an enchantment spell, so there is no reason to exclude implosion on the grounds that it is an evocation spell.
Implosion will not work on undead, because they are immune to spells that require a Fortitude save and do not affect objects. Disintegrate works on them because it also affects objects. (I know this from experience. I cried when my DM discovered that loophole. Okay, I didn't cry, I just whined a bit.) I have no opinion right now on whether disintegrate should also be a death attack, but implosion definitely should be.
In the DMG description of death attacks, it states that death ward protects a character from them. See p. 292.
Given all of the above, I stand by my opinion that implosion is a death attack, and that death ward should protect the character from it.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 22:07:15
quote:
Originally posted by Zucrous
I would say reading the definition of the spell, that it is not a death spell. Unlike other death spells it does not have a target of "a living creature" so you can use it on undead.
IMO think of it as a bigger disintegrate. Death spells are inherently necromantic spells, that is why death ward works so easily against them. Death ward works mainly against negative energy, that is why it stops all forms of inflict spells, including I believe energy drain. I can see where the problem lies, but that is imo how the rule states what happened.
If you want to consider it a death spell however I would look and probably have disintegrate be put in that lot as well.
My thoughts exactly. I think the key element of a death spell is negative energy. So death ward will protect you from everything what produces such energy, but not against anything that kills. Otherwise, the same could be said about a vorpal sword, or a crit from a storm giant wielding a greataxe on the party's rogue. |
| Zucrous |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 21:01:55
I would say reading the definition of the spell, that it is not a death spell. Unlike other death spells it does not have a target of "a living creature" so you can use it on undead.
IMO think of it as a bigger disintegrate. Death spells are inherently necromantic spells, that is why death ward works so easily against them. Death ward works mainly against negative energy, that is why it stops all forms of inflict spells, including I believe energy drain. I can see where the problem lies, but that is imo how the rule states what happened.
If you want to consider it a death spell however I would look and probably have disintegrate be put in that lot as well. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 16:26:58
IMO, based on the description of death attack in the PHB glossary, implosion should have the [Death] descriptor. I see no essential difference between it and destruction, which does have the [Death] descriptor. Even though implosion doesn't have it, I think it's still covered under "magical death effects" in the description of death ward, so my answer is that it should have protected him. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 16:14:54
Hmm. As it happens, Ed Greenwood was DM for an adventure he ran years ago at a (Milwaukee) GenCon, and such a slaad attack hit a PC protected against death. Ed adjudicated it this way:
PC hurled off their feet and rendered unconscious (easily revived by companions). PC took 1 hp damage, was protected against any other effect from the spell . . . but the attack wiped out the warding: the PC was then no longer protected against any future attacks.
This is just one ruling from a prominent freelance designer who's done a lot of work with the slaad (see my earlier reply to The Sage re. unpublished Ed-lore), not any "official" ruling. Note that under certain editions of the game, the "hurled off the feet" part would necessitate a lot of item saving throws for what the PC was wearing, wielding, and carrying.
love,
THO |
|
|
