Defense against implosion

[Trixie]

"Avenge the Team Peregrine, every paladin, every Azurite and Every Human".

Seriously, when you have seen how Redcloak kills the Peregrine, is still anybody here rooting for him?

I'd argue what elf leader did was far worse than spell (judging by description) killing pretty much instantly, yet, apparently, some people did root for him still.

Me? IMHO, killing is bad regardless of the way it's done, but doing it as a part of torturing victim with it is especially vile.

[Chronos]

Yeah, one of those ways around it [a Silence spell] being "walk outside of it on your turn." Without someone with Improved Trip, good grappling talent, or some other way to keep Redcloak in one place, he can just move outside the silence spell's radius before casting on each of his turns and it won't inhibit him one bit.

Well, that depends on the situation. A fight might be in a room/cave/whatever too small to allow that. The melee guys might use tripping or grappling or the like, after all. If you can prepare the battlefield in advance, you might be able to cast multiple Silences to cover a larger area. Another caster might cast spells to impede movement (walls, tentacles, Grease, whatever). A cleric might cast a bunch of Silence spells on pebbles, and scatter them over the battlefield. Yeah, none of this makes it a perfect defense, but it's still pretty useful for a 2nd-level spell.

[Matuse]

Afraid not. Implosion may be a save-or-die, but it doesn't have the [death] descriptor, and the [death] descriptor is what determines whether a spell is a death effect or not.

That isn't even vaguely the case.

Death Ward: The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects*, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.

Implosion: You create a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature’s body. For each round you concentrate, you cause one creature to collapse in on itself, killing it. (This effect, being instantaneous, cannot be dispelled.)

*= SRD defines a death effect (there can be no question that Implosion is magical) as:

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.

That's it. Implosion fills every requirement. Death ward = total immunity to Implosion.

Whether the Order knows that Redcloak can cast Implosion or not is really irrelevant. Nobody with any sort of functional sense (say...Roy) would fight a high level cleric without it. Half of a cleric's offensive spellbook is neutered by Death Ward.

[Douglas]

That entry lists traits that death attacks have, it does not state that all things with those traits are automatically death attacks. Having those traits is not sufficient for something to be a death attack, there must also be a statement that the effect is a death attack. For spells, the [death] descriptor is the standard way of stating it.

If the [death] descriptor is not the defining factor in whether a spell is a death effect or not, then that descriptor has no purpose. I'm not sure there is anything in the game that interacts with the [death] descriptor rather than with "death effects/attacks", and I'm almost completely certain nothing in core does. WotC would not intentionally create a completely meaningless spell descriptor.

From a fluff perspective: there are spells that directly cause death with no intervening mechanism, attacking life force or something similar. These spells are death effects and are labeled as such with the [death] descriptor. There are other spells that do something other than kill you, things that have nothing to do with your "life force", that happens to result in your death. For example, Phantasmal Killer causes overwhelming fear to such an extreme degree that the fear kills the subject, and Implosion physically crushes the subject which happens to be something most creatures cannot survive. These spells do not have the [death] descriptor and are not considered death effects. The end result is the same, but the mechanism is different, and the mechanism is the important part for this label.

[Susil]

Will is a high saving throw for clerics and RC would get to add his wisdom to it as well, he's very unlikely to fail this save and fall for the illusions. I also have doubts Elan will be able to maintain his illusions when under the stress of a party member (especially Haley) potentially getting killed. He's never shown much control over his illusions in the past.

Elan is getting better at it. He's not 'beating Redcloak' better yet, but his illusions aren't totally useless any more!

However, don't forget that if the next Team Evil vs OOTS confrontation happens here in the Western Continent, the Draketooth family are a key player - how well Redcloak can deal with illusions is still a valid question. We've no idea precisely how Draketooth's illusions work, but I'd put a few gp on them being a lot more efficient than Elan's attempts. Certainly Redcloak's charater is pretty rational, I can't seem him panicking or being overwhelmed easily, but against an epic-level illusion spell, even his will save might not be enough...

Come to think of it, I'd quite like to see the OOTS try and take on Team Evil with a similar tactic to the 'three Xykons' - play Redcloak at his own game...

[lesser_minion]

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.

As Douglas has pointed out, that is not the definition of a death effect.

A death effect is something that attempts to kill its victims by directly switching off essential components of their biologies. An Implosion spell doesn't do this: it directly purées its victims into a fine mist; the switching off of essential components of their biologies is merely an unfortunate side effect.

Fundamentally, however, in D&D, a spell is a death effect if it says it is, and it isn't if it doesn't. The 'death attack' rules from the DMG only explain properties of 'most' death effects: Power Word: Kill doesn't allow any save, for example, but it's still a death effect.

On-topic, there are a lot of spells that can potentially serve as universal counterspells: Disintegrate and Power Word: Stun come to mind, mainly because V has access to both.

[pendell]

Okay, got a question.

The Tarrasque
has a fortitude save of 38.

So .. let me see if I get his right .. an epic level cleric (level 20) , could theoretically one-shot the Tarrasque with implosion (roll 1d20 = 19 + 20 cleric levels = 39) ... is that right? Or is the math wrong?

Of course, this still means that you'd have to use wish or miracle to keep it dead, but could this be done?

While reading, I notice another possible defense against implosion: It doesn't work on vapor or gaseous creatures. Would ghostform also protect against it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zevox]

Okay, got a question.

The Tarrasque
has a fortitude save of 38.

So .. let me see if I get his right .. an epic level cleric (level 20) , could theoretically one-shot the Tarrasque with implosion (roll 1d20 = 19 + 20 cleric levels = 39) ... is that right? Or is the math wrong?

Well, the math is very wrong, but the concept isn't. If a Tarrasque rolls a 1 on its save vs an instant-death spell like Implosion, it will die - or rather take non-lethal damage that would normally kill it, but still requires wish or miracle to finish off.

On the math, the save DC of spells is 10 + spell level + wisdom modifier + other modifiers (from feats, for example). Cleric level has nothing to do with it. And you'd need a ridiculous wisdom score to get +20 from that, and it still wouldn't cause the Tarrasque to fail on anything but a 1, since 1+38 = 39, so if it weren't for 1s auto-failing it wouldn't even fail on that.

Also, there's the Tarrasque's spell resistance to deal with. The Cleric has to roll 1d20 + his level + miscellaneous modifiers (i.e. from feats) vs the Tarrasque's SR 32. Doable at level 20 (a roll of 12+ passes, less if the Cleric has spell penetration or some other similar thing to boost it), but far from automatic.

Oh, also, as a nitpick, level 20 isn't epic levels. That's 21+.

Zevox

[Raimun]

So if you are a Cleric, it's better to just beat the Tarrasque into submission.

[Psyren]

While reading, I notice another possible defense against implosion: It doesn't work on vapor or gaseous creatures. Would ghostform also protect against it?

Yes - Ghostform gives you the incorporeal subtype, making you immune.

Implosion should honestly have the [Death] subtype if you ask me, but PF didn't correct it either.

[Matuse]

Implosion is save-or-die. It doesn't inflict any damage, there are no secondary effects.

That makes it a death effect. Period.

Death Ward explicitly protects you against them. I don't see how anyone could come up with any other interpretation. It doesn't matter if it kills you by putting purple polka dots on your eyeballs, or gives you a dream that you were back in high school but not wearing any clothes and died of embarrassment. Save-Or-Die is a DEATH EFFECT.

[SaintRidley]

Implosion is save-or-die. It doesn't inflict any damage, there are no secondary effects.

That makes it a death effect. Period.

Death Ward explicitly protects you against them. I don't see how anyone could come up with any other interpretation. It doesn't matter if it kills you by putting purple polka dots on your eyeballs, or gives you a dream that you were back in high school but not wearing any clothes and died of embarrassment. Save-Or-Die is a DEATH EFFECT.

No, it's a save or die. [Death] is the determiner of a death effect. Just life [Mind-Affecting] is the determiner of Mind-Affecting effects and [Fear] is the determiner of Fear effects.

Just because it can cause death does not make it a death effect.

Phantasmal Killer is a save or die. But it is not a death effect. No [Death].
Holy Word is a save or die (with some conditions). But it is not a death effect. No [Death].
Implosion is a save or die. But it is not a death effect. No [Death].


Finger of Death is a save or die. It is a death effect. It has [Death].

[Gift Jeraff]

I'm guessing [Death] means it has something to do with negative energy, or some other fluff reason?

[SaintRidley]

I'm guessing [Death] means it has something to do with negative energy, or some other fluff reason?

Going through the SRD:

Circle of Death: A circle of death snuffs out the life force of living creatures, killing them instantly.

Destruction: This spell instantly slays the subject and consumes its remains (but not its equipment and possessions) utterly.

Finger of Death: You can slay any one living creature within range.

Power Word Kill: You utter a single word of power that instantly kills one creature of your choice, whether the creature can hear the word or not.

Slay Living: You can slay any one living creature.

Symbol of Death: This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface. When triggered, a symbol of death slays one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150.



Judging from those, the fluff connection is that things simply die. Just keel over. No imploding, no injuries, no obvious markings*. Avada Kedavra, he's dead, Jim.


*Destruction does kind of leave things obvious, but seems to do so after the killing part happens.

Notable:

Undeath to Death lacks the [Death] descriptor and has this for effect text:

"This spell functions like circle of death, except that it destroys undead creatures as noted above."

It seems obvious the removal of the [Death] descriptor is so the spell would function at all.

[Douglas]

Implosion is save-or-die. It doesn't inflict any damage, there are no secondary effects.

That makes it a death effect. Period.

Death Ward explicitly protects you against them. I don't see how anyone could come up with any other interpretation. It doesn't matter if it kills you by putting purple polka dots on your eyeballs, or gives you a dream that you were back in high school but not wearing any clothes and died of embarrassment. Save-Or-Die is a DEATH EFFECT.

Suppose I found an entry in a dictionary that stated "A man is a creature with four limbs grouped in fore and hind pairs, a head, two eyes, and a mouth." Barring mutations, rare genetic disorders, amputations, and other such anomalies, this is an accurate statement. Based on that, then, is a bear a man? Bears have every trait listed.

The Death Attack rules you quoted are similar to my spurious definition of man. They state that all death attacks have the traits listed. They do not state that everything with the listed traits is a death attack, and using them to categorize Implosion as a death effect is as faulty as using my hypothetical definition to declare that a bear is a man.

[Chronos]

If you're going to try to beat the Tarrasque with a failed save against a spell, the better bet is Dominate Monster. For one thing, its Will save bonus, while decently high (48 HD will do that), isn't anywhere near as high as its absurd Fort save bonus, so you're a lot more likely to be successful. And for another thing, of course, if it works, it means that you now have your very own pet Tarrasque.

[veti]

Death Ward explicitly protects you against them. I don't see how anyone could come up with any other interpretation.

Death Ward protects against "death spells" and "magical death effects", but the description doesn't define those effects. (What you cited is a description, not a definition.) In the absence of a definition, most people are interpreting it as meaning "spells or effects with the [death] descriptor". That's not the only possible way of interpreting it, but it's the easiest and least ambiguous.

And I'd agree with it, on the basis that the spell protects you from a certain type of attack - a necromantic attack that tries to kill you by severing your soul from your body. It doesn't protect against "every effect that might kill you", even if it does take the form of a save-or-die spell.

Back on topic: I think Vaarsuvius's best defence would be Spell Turning, which would give Redcloak a very nasty shock.

[Porthos]

So I decided to see if WotC had ever addressed this issue or not. That pointed me to this thread. Which, in turn led to this thread. Which, apparently, gave contradictory reponses from WotC:
(NOTE: The reason this specific email covered Phantasmal Killer is, at some point, the spells became linked in the discussion. I think.)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-leg...tml#post526980

Thanks, Darrin! Sorry to keep after you about this, but we're debating this question over on that how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin message board, the ENBoards. Someone else quoted an email from you that seemed to contradict the one you sent to me. To wit, it said:

[original email from Darrin, claiming that Death Ward protects against PK, snipped]

We're confused now. Your email to me said it only protects against spells with the [death] descriptor. Are we missing something?

Thanks,
Daniel


This answer from Darrin is correct. The effect of Phantasmal Killer is death and Death Ward will protect against it.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact the game support number below.
Thanks!
************************************************** ****************
Bryan Z.
[CONTACT INFO SNIPPED]

So we have Darrin and Bryan claiming that death ward is effective, and Darrin claiming that it's not effective.

Guys, I think this is officially a Rule It Your Own [Darn] Self occasion.

Daniel

Figures.

Anyone know of an official or semi-offical comment from TPTB?

[skaddix]

I'd argue what elf leader did was far worse than spell (judging by description) killing pretty much instantly, yet, apparently, some people did root for him still.

Me? IMHO, killing is bad regardless of the way it's done, but doing it as a part of torturing victim with it is especially vile.

Torture? Please what the Elf did does not constitute torture. Taunting and Harrassment yes, torture no. Torture is what Redcloak and Team Evil did to a certain Paladin.

[SoC175]

That isn't even vaguely the case.

Death Ward: The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects*, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.

Implosion: You create a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature’s body. For each round you concentrate, you cause one creature to collapse in on itself, killing it. (This effect, being instantaneous, cannot be dispelled.)

*= SRD defines a death effect (there can be no question that Implosion is magical) as:

That's it. Implosion fills every requirement. Death ward = total immunity to Implosion.

Whether the Order knows that Redcloak can cast Implosion or not is really irrelevant. Nobody with any sort of functional sense (say...Roy) would fight a high level cleric without it. Half of a cleric's offensive spellbook is neutered by Death Ward.

No, a death effect is any spell that says [Death] among it's keyword, nothing else. Implosion is not a death effect

Death Ward protects against "death spells" and "magical death effects", but the description doesn't define those effects. (What you cited is a description, not a definition.) In the absence of a definition, most people are interpreting it as meaning "spells or effects with the [death] descriptor". That's not the only possible way of interpreting it, but it's the easiest and least ambiguous.

Actually you are only lacking further clarification if you are only using the SRD which is incomplete. Look up the 3.x rulebooks, it's clear cut defined that [Death] tag is the only thing that matters

[KillItWithFire]

I'm guessing [Death] means it has something to do with negative energy, or some other fluff reason?

Pretty much. Implosion isn't considered a death spell because all the magic is doing is causing you collapse in on yourself. The fact that you can't survive that is your problem. When a spell has a death effect, (ie: power word: kill) the goal of the magic is to kill the target. Nothing else happens, they just die. Once you start getting around to 6th or 7th level spells a lot of them can kill in one casting but that doesn't make them death spells.

[Dr. Gamera]

I'd gather that most combat in D&D (and OOtS) takes place well within a 65' radius circle.

This particular supposition...

Spoiler

Show

...is treated in detail in SSaDT.

[TwylyghT]

No, a death effect is any spell that says [Death] among it's keyword, nothing else. Implosion is not a death effect

This is not completely correct, exceptions that are specifically spelled out include a Bodak's gaze, a the Death domain ability. Those are labeled as death effects in their own entries

The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.

The part on death ward that muddies the waters on the [Death] spells only position is the comma between death spells, and magical death effects. If only spells with the [Death] tag were meant to be guarded, "magical death effects" becomes redundant, as everything in the [Death] category would then already be covered "death spell". And considering that the "magical death effect" entry has survived so many revisions intact, I would tend to favor that "magical death effects" is intentionally different and separate from "death spell"

Further, from both the DMG and the PHB

death attack: 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.

The DMG entry further calls upon the Bodaks gaze directly. This can lead to a dispute on whether "Death Attacks" are mechanically the same as "Death Effects". The DMG citing the Bodak as a death attack along with the Bodak entry in the monster manual labeling the gaze a death effect would lend some weight to the argument, surely to be countered by the old "all oranges are fruits but not all fruits are oranges" logic.

[ZerglingOne]

I thought 3.0/3.5 changed the name to Death Ward because "Negative Plane Protection" didn't cover enough cheesy save or die effects.

That being said, I believe personally that Death Ward and its Mass version protect against Implosion's effect.

One way to protect from it for at least a round assuming the cleric using it hasn't cast True Seeing already is to cast sphere of invisibility. The cleric will have to break concentration to cast True Seeing and will lose that casting of Implosion with nothing to concentrate on.

[Kish]

I thought 3.0/3.5 changed the name to Death Ward because "Negative Plane Protection" didn't cover enough cheesy save or die effects.

Death Ward and Negative Plane Protection exist, as separate and unrelated spells, in 2ed.

[ZerglingOne]

Death Ward and Negative Plane Protection exist, as separate and unrelated spells, in 2ed.

Well isn't that vindication of the point that Death Ward would protect against something like Implosion? Negative plane protection protected against something like inflict wounds or energy drain whereas death ward was for killing spells if I'm not mistaken in that case.

Edit: Of note, the Quivering Palm monk ability which has a very similar effect and even flavor text is blocked in DDO by Death Ward. It's not much, but that game is governed by 3.5 rules.

[Chronos]

Again, just because it kills you, doesn't mean it's a death effect. I mean, Fireball can kill, too, but I don't think anyone would argue that Death Ward protects against it.

[TwylyghT]

Using fireball as an argument is completely silly, it does hit point damage, and any death by hit point damage is not a death effect.

Implosion just kills you or it does not, it deals no damage. This whole concept that it crushes you and death is just a side effect is nonsense. Descriptive text is always secondary to mechanical text, and the mechanical text is clear, target creature saves for no effect at all, or dies. It does *not* say a creature failing a save is crushed into goo and if it can not survive this condition it dies, so STOP IT!

By criteria set forth in the PHB and DMG Implosion *is* a death attack, because...

1. It is a spell or ability.
2. Its effect directly slays the target.
3. The effect is instantaneous.

The entire debate really is, are "death attacks" the same thing as "death effects". RAW seems to favor no, RAI is a little more likely. At my table, the answer is yes, for what its worth.

[Kish]

Well isn't that vindication of the point that Death Ward would protect against something like Implosion?

Not touching it. Just saying: Death Ward is not renamed-Negative-Plane-Protection.

[Douglas]

Implosion just kills you or it does not, it deals no damage. This whole concept that it crushes you and death is just a side effect is nonsense. Descriptive text is always secondary to mechanical text, and the mechanical text is clear, target creature saves for no effect at all, or dies. It does *not* say a creature failing a save is crushed into goo and if it can not survive this condition it dies, so STOP IT!

And yet it specifically lists a few categories of creatures that would not be meaningfully affected by being crushed into goo and says that they're immune to it. That certainly seems to imply that the death is just a side effect of being crushed into goo.

Edit: Actually, the statement of the spell's effect is "you cause one creature to collapse in on itself, killing it." That is the mechanical text, and it is quite clear that the effect of the spell is making a creature collapse in on itself, with the usual end result of killing it.

By criteria set forth in the PHB and DMG Implosion *is* a death attack, because...

1. It is a spell or ability.
2. Its effect directly slays the target.
3. The effect is instantaneous.

Where is the rule that any spell or ability with these traits is a death attack? I can find a rule that death attacks have these traits quite easily, but your argument requires a rule that goes the other way.