Do you think familicide would have a save?

[grandpheonix]

Fort, ref or will save? Honestly, i think it would have to offer all three saves for how sick it was. Also, spell resistance?

[dancrilis]

Fort, ref or will save? Honestly, i think it would have to offer all three saves for how sick it was. Also, spell resistance?

It is an epic level spell to the DC could be heightened by quite a lot.
Relevant SRD:

Even if more than one seed has an associated saving throw, the final spell will have only a single saving throw. If two or more seeds have the same kind of saving throw (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will), then obviously that will be used for the spell’s saving throw. If the seeds have different kinds of saving throws, simply choose the saving throw that seems most appropriate for the final spell.

Increase spell’s saving throw DC by +1
Gain +1 bonus on caster level check to overcome target’s spell resistance

Both of those can be added multiple times by increasing the DC to cast the spell.

If I had to guess I would say a Fort save, but meh who cares?

Edit: not who cares in a negative way, just that it would not be important if the difficulty to save has been shot up to unreachable levels.

[grandpheonix]

Im thinking of using it for a final boss vs my party. One of my guys has a deep family with historical significance. If he dies, i wanna do what V did. Animate the skull against his wishes and familicide him.

Its a pretty hardcore game :)

[Kish]

Yeah, that sounds pretty...something.

[dancrilis]

Your game but I would think carefully about it before hand - stating out a spell like Familicide means your dealing with a level of power most players will never reach.

In the comic it was held by a ghost who is powerless without a body and can only be given one once a century so it is not likely going to break 'the game'.
Your version however means that your boss character could simple hunt down a family member of your PC and cast it on them without issue - killing the PC and their family without warning.

[Reboot]

Im thinking of using it for a final boss vs my party. One of my guys has a deep family with historical significance. If he dies, i wanna do what V did. Animate the skull against his wishes and familicide him.

Its a pretty hardcore game :)

As presented, Familicide is way, WAY beyond what a single character could achieve. It's of the "dozens of wizards contributing loads of spell slots in a ritual lasting months" class of Epic spell - and Cloister is a similar case. Yet both are presented as something a single (albeit high-epic) character can cast in a relatively short period of time (strictly, we don't get casting times in either case - but even if you fudge, they both seem more like they're cast in rounds, or maybe minutes, than hours or days) - and without even so much as a scratch of apparent backlash damage or other visible mitigation (cf Xykon using the non-homebrew Epic spell Superb Dispelling).

They were both cases where the Giant just went 'hang the rules' because they didn't fit the story he was telling.

[grandpheonix]

Nah its endgame (theyre epic right now due to a wish soell and me not understanding how wish worked at the time.)

They were level seven and wished for a million XP, a million diamonds, and flesh to stone at will. Spent a month letting them level to 42. Making their boss (who was an NPC at the time but still with the party) gain the benifits as well, and a "year" pass for them to control their massive power gain. 3.5 is alot of fun!

But so multiple saves wouldnt work? And the spell wpuld be used on the player themselves as punishment for leading the party to turn on him.

[Kish]

Okay, I'm not clear on what you're asking. If you want to figure out the rules for a spell that will do what Familicide did in the comic, it should be pretty simple with the Epic Level Hanbook (though probably require a level a lot higher than 42).

If you want to know under what circumstances it would be "fair" to do it to a PC, on the other hand, you're on your own except that I'm confused. If it would be the other PCs turning on that PC, why is the DM the one deciding worse-than-death punishments for him?

[Rodin]

I don't know your group dynamics, but "your character dies, get resurrected as only a head, and then gets killed again along with every blood relative" seems to be the sort of thing that would cause most players to ragequit the group. Maybe that's normal for your group, I dunno. It just seems like you're treading on very dangerous ground. It's an intensely spiteful move, which is why it was so effective at showing how far V had fallen.

[Grey Watcher]

Okay, I'm not clear on what you're asking. If you want to figure out the rules for a spell that will do what Familicide did in the comic, it should be pretty simple with the Epic Level Hanbook (though probably require a level a lot higher than 42).

...

Yeah, going by strict RAW, I think the Class & Level Geekery folks determined it would be absurdly high (like Level 100 absurd). Rich plays a little loose with the 3.5 RAW for the sake of storytelling, but he seems to just ignore the rules for Epic spellcasting altogether and just says the spells do what the plot requires they do (kill thousands with no apparent save, block all scrying short of something set up by the Gods themselves, etc).

[dancrilis]

Nah its endgame (theyre epic right now due to a wish soell and me not understanding how wish worked at the time.)

They were level seven and wished for a million XP, a million diamonds, and flesh to stone at will. Spent a month letting them level to 42. Making their boss (who was an NPC at the time but still with the party) gain the benifits as well, and a "year" pass for them to control their massive power gain. 3.5 is alot of fun!

But so multiple saves wouldnt work? And the spell wpuld be used on the player themselves as punishment for leading the party to turn on him.

Well your call (I don't know your gaming group etc), but from a logical presepective if your villian has familicide and cares about your PC's family why have they not already used it on the family, thereby killing the PC along with them.

As for multiple saves? If you want a spell that allows multiple saves go for it - not RAW but grand not a problem it is your game and your presumedly final scene do whatever makes you and your players happy.

[factotum]

he seems to just ignore the rules for Epic spellcasting altogether and just says the spells do what the plot requires they do (kill thousands with no apparent save, block all scrying short of something set up by the Gods themselves, etc).

Yeah, the splices had some ridonkulously powerful Teleport spells as well--to be able to teleport dozens of ships with their entire crews to an exact location on the other side of the world is pretty darned powerful stuff.

[Douglas]

The whole point of the spell was to kill everyone in the target's bloodline, no exceptions. If it allowed a save, 5% of the targets would pass with a natural 20 no matter how high the save DC, and the spell would fail in its stated purpose.

So no, I would say Familicide does not have a save, and can only be survived by either not being targeted in the first place or having epic level protections that it can't penetrate.

[dancrilis]

The whole point of the spell was to kill everyone in the target's bloodline, no exceptions. If it allowed a save, 5% of the targets would pass with a natural 20 no matter how high the save DC, and the spell would fail in its stated purpose.

So no, I would say Familicide does not have a save, and can only be survived by either not being targeted in the first place or having epic level protections that it can't penetrate.

Well it might depend on how it is done, you can still do damage on a failed save.

So the Slay seed to deal negative levels knocked up to ~40d4 turned to a one round casting and an area affect with a radius knocked up to the planet, would likely kill everyone (burn 20,000 XP and do it at DC 91) if my maths are right (which they might not be).
You would still need to exclude people not in the bloodline I suppose.

Still might want to overcome Spell Resistance (and those immune to level drain are sitting pretty) - but you are likely not overly concerned by most family members saving 40d4/2 is still enough to kill most things (rolling less than an 80 is only a 0.27% chance I believe - so even most dragons will die without issue).

[factotum]

That would still leave the possibility that someone could survive it, though, and Haerta (via V) seemed pretty darned certain that the spell killed *all* of the black dragon's family. It certainly killed 100% of the Draketooth clan.

[Porthos]

The whole point of the spell was to kill everyone in the target's bloodline, no exceptions. If it allowed a save, 5% of the targets would pass with a natural 20 no matter how high the save DC, and the spell would fail in its stated purpose.

So no, I would say Familicide does not have a save, and can only be survived by either not being targeted in the first place or having epic level protections that it can't penetrate.

My personal headcanon is that it does allow a save (if one with a ridonkulous DC) and the spell keeps hitting you until you fail! It's my way of explaining the rare instances of a 'bolt' going through a character multiple times.

[Draconi Redfir]

one interesting tactic one might consider: The spell does have a save, but since it's targeting an entire family, succeeding the save does not necessarily benefit the one who saved.

Let's say you cast the spell on the character. He makes the save, but he fails. Since he's an undead head at this point, nothing really happens. The spell then goes to his brother, who succeeds his save. Unfortunately the character the spell was cast on did NOT succeed his save, so everyone directly related to them dies, Brothers, Sisters, children, and parents. Since the Brother succeeded his save however, his own children (character's nieces/nephews) would be spared the wrath of the spell, potentially even protecting their mother by extension, or perhaps they also need to make a save to protect their mother, but they themselves do not die regardless.

This would allow some small members of the family to survive by their immediate relatives protecting them one last time, even if they themselves did not survive the spell's effect.

I think if used properly this spell could be a great way to add to the story, perhaps keeping the character the villain is targeting alive as either an undead, or being raised by a spell to seek vengeance. It could also add some additional levels of drama as the survivors of the family bloodline begin gathering together, trying to figure out what happened to their loved ones, possibly even blaming the undead/risen member of their family.

This goes against what was depicted in the comic of course, but story trumps mechanics in the comic, so it's understandable.

[Goblin_Priest]

To reach an effect as seen, it would require either no save or very few saves, certainly not 1 save per affected target. Perhaps just on the initial target.

But what do you care for balance, anyways? You allowed a Wish spell to grant them a million of everything, which is vastly beyond the power of that spell. Heck, I'd say that's even more powerful than the Familicide spell you want to duplicate. Your game is already broken and you stated your intent to finish it: so balance is really of little importance. Use an artifact if you are afraid it might have repercussions on following games, but really you should still just dismiss this one as a learning experience of no canon value.

[Grey Watcher]

... Perhaps just on the initial target.

...

I think this is probably the case. Would certainly be the most consistent with what we see. Though that would mean it's not a Fortitude save, since, at the time of casting, Mama Black Dragon was undead, and they are immune to effects that require a Fort save (unless they work on objects, which would be nonsensical for a "kill biological relations" spell or are harmless (which it is quite obviously not). Of course, Haerta was an epic necromancer, so it's possibly that Familicide simply overrides that rule.

[Jay R]

There are more than 20 Draketooth mummies, and no living Draketooths.

Therefore there is no individual saving throw.

[Jasdoif]

My personal headcanon is that it does allow a save (if one with a ridonkulous DC) and the spell keeps hitting you until you fail! It's my way of explaining the rare instances of a 'bolt' going through a character multiple times.

Keep in mind, a lot of the people related to a target are also related to each other. My reading of the given explanation for how Familicide operates is that each "step two" person is targeted for each "step one" person they're related to, so if there's a save they'd have to make it each time unless/until they fail...and a "step one" person that made a save initially would almost certainly qualify as a "step two" person as well.

...which is why I think if a similar spreading spell effect was supposed to be used in a game, it should be no save: with a save (or other partial chance of success effect), accurately modeling that would involve working up the extended genealogy to tell exactly how many saves have to be made each time the spell is cast..and what the saving throw bonuses of all those people are. You shouldn't subject yourself to that. Since 14 saves even at "only fails on a natural 1" is still more likely to have a failure then not, and the extended families we're talking about could easily be that large, and the standard slay epic seed deals damage even on a successful save and 14 successful saves still averages over 400 damage that could kill them anyway...might as well cut out all the complexity, have it kill automatically and let any DM-chosen exceptions be dealt with as they come up.

[Rift_Wolf]

In comic: pretty sure it's a no save, bypass SR, dont-pass-go-dont-collect-£200 kind of spell.

In-game: you could set it up similar to how a similar spell was used in Dresden Files. In order to kill a high power, untouchable Wizard, the bad guys hunt down his family to cast Familicide-like on. So rather than the enemies going after the super epic broken guys, they track down any non-epic family to cast the spell on instead.
In my experience ending a game on such a downer note ruins it for everyone, though.

Another point on Familicide that I overlook; it didn't kill the target. Just their entire family.

[Grey Watcher]

There are more than 20 Draketooth mummies, and no living Draketooths.

Therefore there is no individual saving throw.

Not necessarily. The nature of probability is that you're not guaranteed a result just because it's likely. Heck, the odds of getting EXACTLY 50 heads out of 100 coin flips is just under 8%.

[Aeson]

There are more than 20 Draketooth mummies, and no living Draketooths.

Therefore there is no individual saving throw.

Assuming that Familicide can only kill on a failed save, that there is a 95% chance that any given target will fail a save against Familicide, and that there are 22 members of the Draketooth family (the number of corpses I count in #841), there is a ~32% chance that all members of the Draketooth family will die to a single cast of Familicide. That's not exactly strong evidence against the possibility that Familicide's secondary targets cannot resist the spell.

However, there are at least 85 known victims of Familicide (62 dragons or part-dragons in #639, 22 members of the Draketooth clan in 841, and Tarquin's most recent wife), and there is only a ~1.3% chance that all 85 victims would be killed by Familicide if all it takes for any given target to survive is a single save that the victim has a 95% chance of failing. That's much stronger evidence that Familicide lacks a save.

We can assume that Familicide is more complicated; for example, you could require that any given target must save against Familicide or be killed outright, and if they save, they get hit with another effect that has a reasonably high kill probability (for example, if there's a 95% chance to kill any given target of Familicide with the first effect and an 80% chance to kill any given target of Familicide with what happens after saving against the first effect, there's a ~43% chance that there will be 0 survivors in 85 victims).

Regardless, the simplest explanation for what we see is that Familicide does not allow its victims a save.

Let's say you cast the spell on the character. He makes the save, but he fails. Since he's an undead head at this point, nothing really happens. The spell then goes to his brother, who succeeds his save. Unfortunately the character the spell was cast on did NOT succeed his save, so everyone directly related to them dies, Brothers, Sisters, children, and parents. Since the Brother succeeded his save however, his own children (character's nieces/nephews) would be spared the wrath of the spell, potentially even protecting their mother by extension, or perhaps they also need to make a save to protect their mother, but they themselves do not die regardless.

This sort of thing might work, but, going by the Draketooth family tree in 841, there are at least 19 points in the Draketooth clan alone where saves against propagation would have occurred, and you can add another 7 points in 639 where the Familicide bolts branch and 1 more where Familicide is shown to jump from parent to child. That's 27 saves failed already, which is, I'll grant, more likely than 85 individual saves failed.

There's also the possibility that each time we see the Familicide bolt continue past a known victim, we're seeing evidence that that particular victim failed the save against spell propagation, which would put at least 57 failed saves against spell propagation in 639 alone, plus the 19 in the Draketooth family, for a total of 76 failed saves. With a 95% chance to fail the save, there's about a 2.0% chance that 0 of 76 targets will save against propagating the spell to their immediate family, which isn't significantly better than the 1.3% chance that 0 of 85 known victims will survive a save-or-die effect that each victim has a 5% chance to save against.


To the OP:
If you're going to put this kind of spell into your game, and the player's race has been around for a while, definitely include some kind of save against effect propagation or against dying to the effect, or put some much stiffer limits on the targets that the spell can affect. The more generations back you allow the spell to trace bloodlines and the more steps removed from the initial target you allow the "targets relatives of victims" to propagate, the closer the spell's victims approximate "everyone," or at least "everyone of that species" - and note that merely being of a completely different species may not be protection enough in a fantasy setting where half-X half-Y races are allowed no matter how dissimilar X and Y happen to be, or if you allow the spell to trace relations to a ridiculously distant point in the past in a more 'scientific' setting.

[dancrilis]

That's much stronger evidence that Familicide lacks a save.

I would say the evidence shows that whether you pass or fail the save it likely kills you - that seems to be easier to than than to bypass allowing a save (but curious if anyone wants to create that spell which would kill people without allowing a save to see how it would be put together).

[Grey Watcher]

<snipped for length>

I figure that if it allows a save at all, a failed save kills outright and a successful one does WTFd12 + OMG damage, which would probably be enough to outright kill a non-epic target anyway.

Passing the spell onward definitely appears to be no-save, since, at least for step one, it can be passed via common ancestors/descendants who are already dead.

And yes, depending on the setting, Familicide could easily kill a whole species. Whether humans in your setting have a Mitochondrial Eve or a traditional one, that makes all humans Step One targets.

If I were implementing the spell in a game, even if only as a backstory element, I'd justify the existence of survivors via some other means than making a saving throw: perhaps the spell can't jump planes, so Constance McPlot was saved because she was annoying djinn on the Elemental Plane of Air or something. Or maybe certain kinds of shape changing magic can "confuse" the spell, so Larry Druidson was saved because he was in the shape of an Earth Elemental.

Yes, both of these ideas are cribbed from an adventure path in which, centuries before, nearly every High Elven woman was killed in a magical disaster.

[factotum]

However, there are at least 85 known victims of Familicide (62 dragons or part-dragons in #639, 22 members of the Draketooth clan in 841, and Tarquin's most recent wife), and there is only a ~1.3% chance that all 85 victims would be killed by Familicide if all it takes for any given target to survive is a single save that the victim has a 95% chance of failing. That's much stronger evidence that Familicide lacks a save.

While I believe that Familicide has no save, your logic doesn't add up here. For a start, there must have been hundreds, thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of victims of Familicide--showing us what happened to 85 of them isn't really statistically significant. Secondly, we're trying to prove a negative here, and that's pretty much impossible to do; if we found someone who *should* have been killed by the spell, but wasn't, that would be immediate proof that the spell likely has a saving throw. Only if the comic explicitly told us that every single person the spell targeted died could we begin to prove the opposite.

[Draconi Redfir]

This sort of thing might work, but, going by the Draketooth family tree in 841...

Irrelivent. i was not attempting to explain how familicide works in the comic, i was attempting to come up with a reasonable alternative for the OP's game where some members of the family could potentually survive. since it's a family targeting spell, it would be neat if the saves affected other members of the family and not neccicarily he who saved.

[Aeson]

For a start, there must have been hundreds, thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of victims of Familicide--showing us what happened to 85 of them isn't really statistically significant.

Statistical significance is not defined by how large of a sample we take relative to the total population, it is defined by how likely it is that we will falsely accept or reject a hypothesis based on the observed characteristics of the sample. Moreover, there is no single defining condition for a sample to be statistically significant - whether or not a sample is statistically significant depends on the significance level we choose, and so a sample of 100 people out of 7 billion may be significant whereas a sample of 1 million out of 1.1 million may not be (granted, it's rather unlikely that there is a practical example of a scenario where a sample comprising ~91% of the population is not statistically significant).

Define the hypothesis to be: Familicide has a 95% chance to kill any given person affected by the spell.

Sample sets:
- Draketooth family (22 individuals, 0 survivors). Probability of 0 survivors in a sample of 22 individuals is roughly 32% given that the hypothesis is true.
- All victims shown in #639 (62 individuals, 0 survivors). Probability of 0 survivors in a sample set of 62 individuals is roughly 4.2% given that the hypothesis is true.
- All known victims (85 individuals, 0 survivors). Probability of 0 survivors in a sample of 85 individuals is roughly 1.3% given that the hypothesis is true.

If we set our significance level to 33%, then all of these sample sets are statistically significant. If we set our significance level to 5%, then the second and third sample sets are statistically significant. If we set our significance level to 2%, then only the last sample is statistically significant. If we set our significance level to 1%, then none of the sample sets is statistically significant.

We can argue over whether or not the sample sets are biased (and I'll be more than happy to grant that all of these sample sets are probably biased; the defining characteristic of the population of individuals we know to have been eligible targets of Familicide is essentially that they died because of it), and we can argue over what significance level is appropriate, but the claim that a sample of 85 individuals who were eligible targets of Familicide is not statistically significant because there were probably thousands of eligible targets is nonsensical. There's only a ~1.3% chance that the observed behavior would have occurred if the hypothesis "Familicide kills all eligible targets who fail a save, and the eligible targets have a 95% chance to fail the save" is true. That's within reasonable, if somewhat loose, significance levels for discarding the hypothesis, if the sample set is unbiased.

Secondly, we're trying to prove a negative here, and that's pretty much impossible to do; if we found someone who *should* have been killed by the spell, but wasn't, that would be immediate proof that the spell likely has a saving throw. Only if the comic explicitly told us that every single person the spell targeted died could we begin to prove the opposite.

True. I should have more explicitly only discarded the hypothesis stated at the beginning of my previous post.

Of course, you could also read my post and realize that I gave an example of a hypothesis which cannot be discarded using reasonable significance levels and the sample sets from the comic, which one would think might indicate that, despite the imprecision of my wording, I do not think that there is no possible way for Familicide to function that includes one or more saves, especially given that I only said in conclusion that "kills with no save" is the simplest explanation given how the spell is shown to function, not that it is the only explanation, or even the most reasonable.

[Goblin_Priest]

I think this is probably the case. Would certainly be the most consistent with what we see. Though that would mean it's not a Fortitude save, since, at the time of casting, Mama Black Dragon was undead, and they are immune to effects that require a Fort save (unless they work on objects, which would be nonsensical for a "kill biological relations" spell or are harmless (which it is quite obviously not). Of course, Haerta was an epic necromancer, so it's possibly that Familicide simply overrides that rule.

Indeed, I don't think much thought was put into making the spell consistent with existing game mechanics: it was a plot device that was not intended to be used more than once.

Does beg the question of why V killed the dragon before casting the spell, though. Maybe that act "casting on the recently slain" contributed to bypassing the saves.

The point remains, though, that trying to balance the utterly broken is a moot exercise to begin with. Just do like Rich and go with whatever best fits the story you are trying to put forward.