Defense against implosion

[Dr.Epic]

Well, if they already implode themselves before facing Red Cloak, he can't implode them twice. Think about it.

[Cronos988]

This Thread (already referenced before) makes a compelling case as to why Implosion is no death effect.
To summarize:

Death ward protects against "death spells" and "magical death effects".

- death spells are spells with the [death] descriptor, Implosion is not
- magical death effects are supernatural abilities that, while not spells, work like a [death] spell. They prevent raise dead. Any spell with these attributes is specifically noted as a "death effect" in its description.

Those are the basic "rule" arguments. But additional arguments make the case even more compelling:

- Implosion kills by physically destroying the body. All known [death] spells or spells that are labeled "death effect" belong to necromancy and directly attack the life force
- Death Ward would be OP if it protected against every single Save or Die spell
- If it did, it would also portect against spells like holy word or phantasmal killer, which clearly does not fit the fluff

The Thread also contains reference to an article by WoTC describing Implosion as one of the effects that cannot be countered by Death Ward.

All in all, the case for Death Ward not being designed to protect against Implosion is pretty strong. But that does not mean things are not different in the OOTS-Verse.

[Morthis]

My understanding of this was always that [death] spells just simply caused death itself, while others have some effect on the body.

For example, if you die to implosion, the cause of death obviously is the fact that your body collapsed and simply couldn't continue to sustain itself like that. Sure this collapse was caused by magic, but the cause of death itself was something that had a real impact on the body. Same story for phantasmal killer, the cause of death is that you were, quite literally, scared to death. The body couldn't handle the stress and simply could not sustain itself. Cloudkill, again, cause of death is the gas clouds and killed you, your body could not handle this gas. All these spells have an effect on the body where, if asked, we could describe what killed them without needing to including magic at all (even though it was still ultimately caused by magic).

Meanwhile the [death] spells don't have things like that listed. For those spells, it just says you die now. Any explanation as to why a person died would be "because magic killed them". I never saw these type of spells as attacking the body at all, but rather the soul, life force, whatever you want to call it.

In that sense, I feel it makes a lot of sense for a cleric to be able to protect against the second line of spells since this feels like divine territory and all these spells kill in roughly the same way (attacking the soul/life force/whatever). It wouldn't make much sense a single spell could protect against everything from the first line of spells, because the cause of death is various things done to the body, and any spell that protects your body from all those things should also just protect you from plain dying to damage (if your body can survive collapsing in on itself, I'm pretty sure it can handle a dagger stabbed in some vital organ :P).

[JSSheridan]

So is 'Rock falls, everyone dies,' a death effect?

[TwylyghT]

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.

It works on any and all creatures that it can effect at all , which is any creature that is not gaseous or incorporeal. The spells text allows for no targets that survive the effect on a failed save. (Some creatures specific text counters this, the Tarrasque for example, has specific text on the issue. The undead and construct types have specific text on fortitude saves, the spell itself has no clause.). Save, or Die. There is *no* Save, or usually die.

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.

The entry is...

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.

That's the whole text as it appears in the PHB. There again is not a most, or usually in the text. its simply "A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target". Nothing in the entry states that the [Death] tag is the sole factor in determining this trait.

- Implosion kills by physically destroying the body. All known [death] spells or spells that are labeled "death effect" belong to necromancy and directly attack the life force

Uhm... no? Power Word Kill is an enchantment, mind effecting compulsion with the death tag. Crisis of Life is a telepathy power with mind-affecting and death as tags. Clairsentience is also a power with the death tag. Note none of these have any ties to necromancy or negative energy, so that also counts pretty heavy against the Death Ward only protects against negative/necromancy effects.

The Thread also contains reference to an article by WoTC describing Implosion as one of the effects that cannot be countered by Death Ward.

And WoTC articles are not at all known to contradict themselves or be all together wrong at times?

My understanding of this was always that [death] spells just simply caused death itself, while others have some effect on the body.

For example, if you die to implosion, the cause of death obviously is the fact that your body collapsed and simply couldn't continue to sustain itself like that. Sure this collapse was caused by magic, but the cause of death itself was something that had a real impact on the body. Same story for phantasmal killer, the cause of death is that you were, quite literally, scared to death. The body couldn't handle the stress and simply could not sustain itself. Cloudkill, again, cause of death is the gas clouds and killed you, your body could not handle this gas. All these spells have an effect on the body where, if asked, we could describe what killed them without needing to including magic at all (even though it was still ultimately caused by magic).

See thats the thing though, most of those do infact cause other effects *with mechanics* that *then* determine if they kill you. Vorpal severs the head, and then, as stated in the text, kills creatures that would be killed by decapitation. Phantasmal killer creates an illusion, that then, if your subject to fear may scare you to death. Cloud Kill conjures up a cloud of poison, that then might kill you if your not immune to poisons.

Can you live without a head? Great! But you head is still chopped off.
Are you immune to poisons? Great! There is still a cloud of poison.
Immune to fear effects? Great! That big scary illusion still appeared.

Implosion does not crush you and *then* check if thats fatal. It kills, or does nothing. That's why it is different.

[JFMS]

That's the whole text as it appears in the PHB. There again is not a most, or usually in the text. its simply "A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target". Nothing in the entry states that the [Death] tag is the sole factor in determining this trait.

It's not that simple, raise dead and reincarnate does not work on a victim of a death attack, and since you can use reincarnate to bring a victim of implosion back to life, implosion is not a death attack.

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.

[KillItWithFire]

So my analysis of the thread is this: People either think that death-ward protects against implosion or it does not. Every argument seems to be a back-and-forth that progresses like this: "it doesn't have the [death] tag!" to "It kills you outright!" Since neither of these parties seem to able to be dissuaded by those statements this could go on forever. I personally reside in the first camp but since the rules are so ambiguous in this sense and even the guys at WotC have no idea how this works I say just go ask your DM and play it that way. If you're wondering how it works in OotS, depends on which camp The Giant is in and I don't think any of us can speak for him on the matter.

[Chronos]

That's the whole text as it appears in the PHB. There again is not a most, or usually in the text. its simply "A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target". Nothing in the entry states that the [Death] tag is the sole factor in determining this trait.

That's a description, not a definition.

[pendell]

Is it possible there are no mechanics because the original spell designer was lazy?

Is it possible the spell was specifically designed to bypass death ward? After all, if it does the exact same thing as finger of death but with different flavor text, why not just use finger of death? Why have two spells which do the exact same thing?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[gadren]

I'm surprised no one has suggested that V simply casts greater dispel magic + quickened enervation on Redcloak.

[Gift Jeraff]

I'm surprised no one has suggested that V simply casts greater dispel magic + quickened enervation on Redcloak.

V cannot use necromancy.

[Zevox]

Is it possible the spell was specifically designed to bypass death ward? After all, if it does the exact same thing as finger of death but with different flavor text, why not just use finger of death? Why have two spells which do the exact same thing?

They don't do the exact same thing though. Implosion is several times more powerful. Finger of Death is a Sorcerer/Wizard spell that kills a single living target. Implosion is a Cleric spell that lasts four rounds, can be used on one target per round, and can kill any corporeal target.

Zevox

[KillItWithFire]

I'm surprised no one has suggested that V simply casts greater dispel magic + quickened enervation on Redcloak.

Because It's a necromancy spell, one of V's barred schools.

EDIT: I seem to have been struck by a ninja.

[Kish]

That's a description, not a definition.

I hate to get drawn into this. However.

Does anything in the rules draw any connection at all between the [death] descriptor and "death effects"?

[Cronos988]

It works on any and all creatures that it can effect at all , which is any creature that is not gaseous or incorporeal. The spells text allows for no targets that survive the effect on a failed save. (Some creatures specific text counters this, the Tarrasque for example, has specific text on the issue. The undead and construct types have specific text on fortitude saves, the spell itself has no clause.). Save, or Die. There is *no* Save, or usually die.

That seems a lot like arguing semantics. Do you have any example of a creature or state of a creature to which implosion, by way of its mechanic (crushing) should not apply, but does?

That's the whole text as it appears in the PHB. There again is not a most, or usually in the text. its simply "A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target". Nothing in the entry states that the [Death] tag is the sole factor in determining this trait.

If you read the thread referenced above, you will note that "death effects" are NOT spells with the [death] tag. That would be redundant. Death effects are supernatural effects that, according to their description, are death effects.

Uhm... no? Power Word Kill is an enchantment, mind effecting compulsion with the death tag. Crisis of Life is a telepathy power with mind-affecting and death as tags. Clairsentience is also a power with the death tag. Note none of these have any ties to necromancy or negative energy, so that also counts pretty heavy against the Death Ward only protects against negative/necromancy effects.

And how does Power Word: Kill kill you? It is quite apparent that it attacks your life force. And it is a great example of why Death Ward has nothing to do with "save or die", because Power Word Kill is blocked and is not a SoD.

See thats the thing though, most of those do infact cause other effects *with mechanics* that *then* determine if they kill you. Vorpal severs the head, and then, as stated in the text, kills creatures that would be killed by decapitation. Phantasmal killer creates an illusion, that then, if your subject to fear may scare you to death. Cloud Kill conjures up a cloud of poison, that then might kill you if your not immune to poisons.

Can you live without a head? Great! But you head is still chopped off.
Are you immune to poisons? Great! There is still a cloud of poison.
Immune to fear effects? Great! That big scary illusion still appeared.

Implosion does not crush you and *then* check if thats fatal. It kills, or does nothing. That's why it is different.

I am sorry but this is nothing but semantics. All of the spells you listed do theoretically infinite damage if the target can be affected by their mechanic. Implosion is no different. You can either ignore the effect description altogether, or take it into account. You cannot ignore 90% of the effect description and rely solely on the last 2 words. That is not how you interpret a text, as I am sure any lawyer will attest to.

In fact, I coul make the same argument for say cloudkill, as cloudkill states "These vapors automatically kill any living creature with 3 or fewer HD". The immunities are in a different sentence, just as they are in the Implosion description. By that logic, cloudkill is a death effect.

Does anything in the rules draw any connection at all between the [death] descriptor and "death effects"?

No, but the term "death effect" is specifically spelled out in several abilities that attack your life force. This is presumably the case to make clear which abilities allow raising and which do not.

[TwylyghT]

And how does Power Word: Kill kill you? It is quite apparent that it attacks your life force. And it is a great example of why Death Ward has nothing to do with "save or die", because Power Word Kill is blocked and is not a SoD.

1. Nobody says the Death Ward has anything to do with SoD. It has to do with death attacks, which kill instantly, with or without saves.

2. Power Word Kill does not attack the life force, it's a command to die so powerful you obey through willing yourself dead. Crisis of Life targets the rhythm of the heart leading to a "natural" death. Recall Death makes them re-suffer old injuries so vibrantly they can die from the shock. They do not target "life force", they are not necromancy effects, but they do however have [death] tags.

Honestly, a lot of troubles in this and any system would clean up nicely with a good sweep of the text. If the death attack entry was "Death Attack: Spells and abilities with the death descriptor" instead of just saying "Death attacks: A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target" it would kill the whole debate.

[Chronos]

Does anything in the rules draw any connection at all between the [death] descriptor and "death effects"?

Yes, the existence of the [death] descriptor. Nobody ever questions what a fire spell is; it's a spell with the [fire] descriptor. Nobody ever questions what an evil spell is; it's a spell with the [evil] descriptor. Similarly, there should be no question of what a death spell is; it's a spell with the [death] descriptor.

Seriously, what did you think those descriptors were for?

[SaintRidley]

I hate to get drawn into this. However.

Does anything in the rules draw any connection at all between the [death] descriptor and "death effects"?

Indirectly - Circle of Death is a [Death] spell and most certainly a death effect. Undeath to Death does exactly the same thing as Circle of Death but lacks the [Death] descriptor. This would logically be due to the immunity undead have to death effects, thus making removing the [Death] tag a way to prevent internal contradiction in the spell.

[pendell]

In light of strip 828, why hasn't Redcloak used implosion on Tsukiko? As a mid-level mystic theurge, her fort save can't be that good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zevox]

In light of strip 828, why hasn't Redcloak used implosion on Tsukiko? As a mid-level mystic theurge, her fort save can't be that good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Uh, because he can't just go and kill her without ticking off Xykon? I would think this is obvious.

(Also because he probably didn't prepare the spell twice and it has surely run out by now, since it lasts only four rounds, but that's secondary.)

Zevox

[pendell]

Uh, because he can't just go and kill her without ticking off Xykon? I would think this is obvious.

I don't think so. Redcloak already put a blade barrier in her face and sent a chlorine elemental after her. When she complained to Xykon, Xykon laughed and told her "We're the bad guys. No one likes a whiner. Suck it up and deal with it."

If Redcloak killed Tsukiko, I don't think Xykon would be terribly upset. If anything, I think it's possible his entire purpose of bringing her on and giving her ritual components was to incite some inter-party friction -- which is pure entertainment for him.

ETA: To explore this further, Xykon has a history -- as seen in SOD -- of deliberately standing back and allowing his minions to be slaughtered by adventurers because, as a lich, the only pleasure left to him is the pleasure of watching other people fight or killing them himself.

Before Tsukiko came along, Xykon's main entertainment was watching the Teevo. You can't tell me that doesn't get old quickly. Not only is Tsukiko good at keeping Xykon entertained, it's possible Xykon WANTS Tsukiko and Redcloak to kill each other. Whoever wins, Xykon gets entertainment from the battle and a cleric capable of performing the ritual.

My guess is that if Xykon were to wander in and find Redcloak standing over Tsukiko's remains, his response would be "Man, I was wondering when a square like you would find the stones to bump her off. Now animate the corpse and let's get going."

(Also because he probably didn't prepare the spell twice and it has surely run out by now, since it lasts only four rounds, but that's secondary.)

24 hours rest. Zap her tomorrow.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zevox]

I don't think so. Redcloak already put a blade barrier in her face and sent a chlorine elemental after her. When she complained to Xykon, Xykon laughed and told her "We're the bad guys. No one likes a whiner. Suck it up and deal with it."

That was when he had just recruited her, before he had her doing anything important - such as, say, examining half of the ritual to obtain information on it. Now that he has reason to consider her valuable, he's not going to be so nonchalant about it.

Zevox

[Matuse]

That's a description, not a definition.

That's sophistry, not an argument.

Yes, the existence of the [death] descriptor. Nobody ever questions what a fire spell is; it's a spell with the [fire] descriptor. Nobody ever questions what an evil spell is; it's a spell with the [evil] descriptor. Similarly, there should be no question of what a death spell is; it's a spell with the [death] descriptor.

The difference being that several creature types (Undead, most specifically) are immune to such spells, by virtue of already being dead. Intrinsic immunity to implosion is far too esoteric to bother with a [Corporeal Affecting] tag.

It also relates to spell schools and domains. "X gets a bonus to save vs all spells with the [Cold] descriptor". "Y casts all spells with the [Good] descriptor with +2 caster levels". Casting Unhallow gives a bonus to [Evil] spells while standing in the area. Not putting such a tag on Implosion prevents anyone from getting special bonuses for or against it.

Also worth noting that Dungeons and Dragons Online (based on 3.5 rules) has Death Ward giving immunity to Implosion and vorpal attacks.

If [Death] was a requirement for Death Ward to protect you, I have a simple question: Why doesn't it say exactly that?

Death Ward: You are protected against all spells with the [Death] Descriptor. You are also protected against non-spell effects which cause instant death, such as the gaze of a Bodak.

Does it say that? No. It says "Magical death effects". Implosion is magical, and its effect is to cause death. Since the ONLY effect it can possibly have is death...not injury, not inconvenience, not embarrassment, not sleeping with supermodels, the specific mechanic description for it really doesn't matter unless you are incorporeal. It accomplishes two things: 1) It's flavor, 2) It puts a limitation on the spell so it can't flat out kill anything, much as Wail Of The Banshee doesn't work on deaf opponents.

[Zevox]

If [Death] was a requirement for Death Ward to protect you, I have a simple question: Why doesn't it say exactly that?

Because spell descriptions never explicitly refer to tags. Spells that grant energy resistance don't say they grant resistance to spells with the [Fire], [Electricity], etc descriptors either, but that doesn't change that spells without those descriptors won't qualify for their effects.

Zevox

[Aldrakan]

I think it's obvious that the text is somewhat ambiguous on this point, but I'm going to make my own argument in terms of elegance.

Here's the text of the spell taken from SRD:

"The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.
This spell doesn’t remove negative levels that the subject has already gained, nor does it affect the saving throw necessary 24 hours after gaining a negative level.
Death ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks even if those attacks might be lethal."

As I see it there are two versions of death ward being proposed in this discussion. One protects against negative energy effects and [death] effects, the other protects against spells that cause death, and also negative energy effects.
The first doesn't protect against implosion, because that works by creating a destructive resonance that makes the body implode, and as a result the person dies. That is obviously how it works, because 1. that's what the spell description says it does and 2. it doesn't work against noncorporeal creatures because they don't have a body to implode. Nor does it protect against phantasmal killer, because that works by scaring the victim so much they die of fright.

It protects you from being harmed by negative energy.

The second protects against both of those spells, because it protects against instant death caused by magic. This includes having the soul ripped away from the body, but it also includes physical damage to the body that kills it (e.g. implosion). But only if it would do so under any circumstances. So if you get hit by a fireball that would kill you if you fail the save, death ward doesn't protect against that, even though both would be killing you by inflicting unsurvivable damage to your body resulting from you failing a saving throw. It also protects against energy drain and level drain.

It protects you from being harmed by negative enemy, and also protects you against things that would kill you if you failed the save, but only if they would always kill you if you failed the save.

Now let's look at what this requires the spell to do.

The first of these stops negative energy spells from affecting you.
The second also blocks negative energy, but in addition it checks out any other spell coming your way to see if it creates an effect that could kill you, but only if it's designed to do so regardless of how much health you currently have, no matter what mechanism it uses to accomplish this, and if it is does blocks that.

In my opinion, one of these is very simple, and works perfectly well in-universe. The other makes no goddam sense.

[KillItWithFire]

Also worth noting that Dungeons and Dragons Online (based on 3.5 rules) has Death Ward giving immunity to Implosion and vorpal attacks.

It's not worth noting actually, DDO has made a lot of changes to the rules, whether to make the transition from table to digital or easier or sometimes just because. (I don't think death ward protects you from a sword that cuts your head off) There a plenty of users who feel that death-ward should not affect vorpal or implosion and if look, you'l find a discussion on their forums that looks eerily similar to this one.

[Blisstake]

Also worth noting that Dungeons and Dragons Online (based on 3.5 rules) has Death Ward giving immunity to Implosion and vorpal attacks.

And in Pathfinder (based on 3.5 rules), Death Ward definitely doesn't work on Implosion, but no one's using that in their arguments, as it's equally as non-applicable.

Anyway, I don't see this argument going anywhere in the forseeable future...