Do you think familicide would have a save?

[littlebum2002]

Point of order: Unless Rich posted something somewhere, you can no more prove that this is not a random sample representative of the population eligible to be affected by Familicide than I can prove that it is.

Also, the Draketooth clan is a random sample whereas the dragons and part-dragons shown when Vaarsuvius casts Familicide are not? Your evidence for this, please?

Of course I have no idea if the sample set about the dragons is random or not. It is possible we were shown a random sample of dragons, and it is possible we were only shown some out of the subset of "dragons that died". But it doesn't matter, Unless I know it is random, it is useless in a statistical context, and it literally tells us nothing about the mortality rate of the Familicide spell. In other words, unless you know a sample is random, you must assume it is not.

The Draketooth clan is different. They are an intact group. Unlike the dragons, we know they are taken from the group "creatures affected by familicide" and not just the subgroup "Creatures killed by familicide". If one of them had survived, we would have known it. But we know none of them survived, and therefore we can calculate the chance that this was a statistical anomaly, which as you showed was incredibly low.

If you'd bothered to read, you would have seen that I am aware that there are potential problems with the sample sets available, and that this can cause issues with applying statistics to the data.

Then you shouldn't have done it.

If I showed you pictures of 1000 people who have had their heads cut off, how many survivors need to be in the sample set before you consider it unbiased?

This is not how statistics works. This is not how anything works. Your sample size has nothing to do with whether or not it is biased. Either you're showing me a random sample, or you're not. Again, if I show you a sample set of pictures of people killed by breast cancer, unless you know whether or not my sample was taken at random, it literally tells you nothing about the survival rate of breast cancer.

[snowblizz]

Of course I have no idea if the sample set about the dragons is random or not. It is possible we were shown a random sample of dragons, and it is possible we were only shown some out of the subset of "dragons that died". But it doesn't matter, Unless I know it is random, it is useless in a statistical context, and it literally tells us nothing about the mortality rate of the Familicide spell. In other words, unless you know a sample is random, you must assume it is not.

Rich specifically did not show any human(oid)s among those affected by Familicide to make it less easy to jump to conclusions about the Draketooth family being dragon descended.

[factotum]

Rich specifically did not show any human(oid)s among those affected by Familicide to make it less easy to jump to conclusions about the Draketooth family being dragon descended.

There are at least two humanoids among those killed in #639? The one on the third row who's wearing armour and carrying an axe and shield, and the one who looks like some sort of caster on the fifth row.

[snowblizz]

There are at least two humanoids among those killed in #639? The one on the third row who's wearing armour and carrying an axe and shield, and the one who looks like some sort of caster on the fifth row.

Difference of definition of humanoid? In BRitF commentary Rich says he changed one "more humanoid half-dragon" to be less so, so as to give less of a hint of dragons mixing with other races, specially humans I guess.

[Goblin_Priest]

There are at least two humanoids among those killed in #639? The one on the third row who's wearing armour and carrying an axe and shield, and the one who looks like some sort of caster on the fifth row.

Indeed, one is a humanoid large half-dragon, I'd assume, plus the half-dragon centaur, plus... what kinda looks like a human half-dragon (or dragonkin? I don't know) sorcerer.

[factotum]

Difference of definition of humanoid? In BRitF commentary Rich says he changed one "more humanoid half-dragon" to be less so, so as to give less of a hint of dragons mixing with other races, specially humans I guess.

Well, they're technically still *humanoid* since that just means having a roughly human layout--two arms, two legs, one head, no wings, sort of thing. I imagine that comment means that he probably changed someone to have a dragon head rather than a more human one, or something like that--we can see from the "family tree" in Girard's pyramid that the immediate offspring of a human-dragon pairing can have a mismash of human and dragon features, and it's only the second generation who tend to revert to looking more human.

[Rift_Wolf]

Well, they're technically still *humanoid* since that just means having a roughly human layout--two arms, two legs, one head, no wings, sort of thing. I imagine that comment means that he probably changed someone to have a dragon head rather than a more human one, or something like that--we can see from the "family tree" in Girard's pyramid that the immediate offspring of a human-dragon pairing can have a mismash of human and dragon features, and it's only the second generation who tend to revert to looking more human.

This made me think of something; Rich is usually very good at setting up DnD concepts for non-DnD readers. Did he ever set up that concept that sorcerers (possibly) gain their magic from Draconic (in some cases) Blood/ancestry (depending on edition/splat)? The only comic I can think of that mentioned it was a comic title; it refers to Therklas parents, and says something like (It's much worse for half-dragons')

[Kish]

He did not, but only people on the forums and people who know enough D&D to surmise it know that Girard was mostly a sorcerer. To someone who doesn't know D&D and only reads the comic, he's an illusion-guy who is part dragon, and that's it.

[Goblin_Priest]

As far as I recall, 3ed is intentionally vague on a sorcerer's source of powers. "Many" might get it due to draconic bloodlines, but others do not.

[KorvinStarmast]

In early versions of D&D, "Otto's Irresistible Dance" was pretty much broken in that regard--the spell itself had no saving throw, and any being affected by it got no saving throws to anything done against them for the duration. They nerfed it pretty heavily by the time 3.5 rolled around, where it only gives a penalty to AC and reflex saves, plus a free AOO against the target each round.

In 1e, the number of magic users who made it to level 15 was pretty small, in my experience. That's the min level for spells of 8th level. There were a lot of 7-9 level spells in 1e that had saving throw: none. The limitation to the dance was that it required a touch. As fragile as magic users were in that system, that created a risk to use of that spell.
Broken?
No.
Mighty powerful magic? Yes! It's an 8th level spell. -4 to AC and not shield and all saving throws denied for 2-5 rounds. That could get you killed if you were the subject of that spell.

For all of the magic that could be had in an AD&D game, it was in a lot of ways a lower magic setting than the d20 system.(Well, let's say that was the intent ... how people played it is another matter, as style varied widely).
It was also one of a number of spells whose inspiration was as much whimsy/joke as anything else. Compare it to OD&D boots of dancing

These boots appear to be any of the others listed before them, and they will continue to so function until their wearer is in a situation where an enemy is in pursuit with intent to kill or some similar situation. When this happens the boots cause the feet of the wearer to dance a jig, soft shoe, tap, and an occasional Shuffle off to Buffalo. Naturally, he is then unable to flee or otherwise escape.

Otto's spell and those boots sure look like they came from the same idea generator ... sorry, I digress.

Returning to our regularly scheduled program. Familicide was no dance.

[Deliverance]

To the original question, NO, I do not think familicide would have a save, nor would magic resistance help

"By my will alone all your relatives will DIE!" is a lot more epic and story-fulfilling than "By my will alone all your relatives might die, depending on how lucky they were; I really don't have any control of who will live and who will die, so I might just bump off a distant aunt or two if your family practices proper buffing protocol, but I'm hoping for the best".

Furthermore, the story itself, while not explicitly addressing this issue, lends its explanation to the no-save option when V describes its functionality to the ABD.


As regards using it in an ongoing roleplaying game, if you stat it, they will come. So don't do that. **** DC and game mechanics, this is a story-telling device.

It is the sort of spell that should be reserved for GM use as an ultimate threat and never, ever, be put in player hands except as the end result of an arbitrarily hard quest whose outcome, the successful use of familicide, will immediately end all future adventures for the players concerned, leaving them as mythical people in the world concerned for future generations of adventurers to be properly in awe of, or remove access to the spell forever (single use, requiring unique ingredient, whatever), leaving them to deal with the fallout of their actions without a get-out-of-jail-free murder card to address future problems.

[DeliaP]

It is the sort of spell that should be reserved for GM use as an ultimate threat and never, ever, be put in player hands except as the end result of an arbitrarily hard quest whose outcome, the successful use of familicide, will immediately end all future adventures for the players concerned, leaving them as mythical people in the world concerned for future generations of adventurers to be properly in awe of

emphasis added

Or perhaps, the leaving characters concerned remembered as mass murderers, condemned and villified for the rest of time?

Fortunately the OP is not suggesting the PC's get their hands on the spell themselves.

[Koo Rehtorb]

emphasis added

Or perhaps, the leaving characters concerned remembered as mass murderers, condemned and villified for the rest of time?

Not mutually exclusive.

[Deliverance]

emphasis added

Or perhaps, the leaving characters concerned remembered as mass murderers, condemned and villified for the rest of time?

Fortunately the OP is not suggesting the PC's get their hands on the spell themselves.

Certainly possible, as the two are in no ways mutually exclusive: Awe indicates a feeling of wonder and respect or fear, which such an act would certainly result in regardless of who was targeted and regardless of people's value-judgement of the act, while you are describing one possibly value-judgement which historians, scholars, or oral tradition might pass on should the chosen target, circumstances, or consequences in people's morality judge the act in that way.

[factotum]

In 1e, the number of magic users who made it to level 15 was pretty small, in my experience. That's the min level for spells of 8th level. There were a lot of 7-9 level spells in 1e that had saving throw: none.

But most of the really powerful kill spells *did* have a saving throw. The Dance basically allowed you to turn a save-or-die spell into just plain old die, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.

[veti]

In early versions of D&D, "Otto's Irresistible Dance" was pretty much broken in that regard--the spell itself had no saving throw, and any being affected by it got no saving throws to anything done against them for the duration. They nerfed it pretty heavily by the time 3.5 rolled around, where it only gives a penalty to AC and reflex saves, plus a free AOO against the target each round.

It's right there in the name, "Irresistible". There are two things that stop that spell from being overpowered: one, it's "range: touch", which is no fun for a squishy magic-user with pathetic attack rolls, and two, it's high level (7th?), which means you've got to burn a high-level spell slot just to get a chance of casting it, and if your opponent has any kind of level-appropriate armour class you'll likely miss anyway (as well as putting yourself within melee reach of Demogorgon, or whatever the intended target it is).

[arrowed]

I really don't have any control of who will live and who will die, so I might just bump off a distant aunt or two if your family practices proper buffing protocol, but I'm hoping for the best"..

I laugh. Imaginary adverts are popping through my mind: Remember kids, always get a Resistance spell before and after meals to keep you healthy! A Mind Blank a day keeps the psychics at bay. If you work in an unsafe environment, consider potions of Resist Energy. Death Ward: for when a homicidal maniac with a vendetta casts Familicide. Just from Death Ward's description, it looks like it might be an effective defence against Familicide actually.

[Goblin_Priest]

I don't think "it doesn't allow a save because its intent is to kill everyone" is a valid argument, though. Not all spells can achieve their intent. Indeed, almost all harmful spells can fail though some means or another.

And if V had access to spells that can remotely kill so many creatures, many of which being quite powerful, you'd suspect that going into close range to duel Xykon wouldn't have been necessary.

I would suspect that it would allow for SR and a save, but only on the initial target, or otherwise the secondary targets get a huge penalty to theirs if the first one fails. I would also suspect that epic protection spells would ward against it.

The only random sample we have for witnessing the effect is the Draketooth family. Some have stipulated that if a save was allowed, at least 5% would survive regardless of how high the DC is... but that's only if it's a save that negates the effect, instead of being a save for partial. If it's a DC 60: failure brings instant death, success gives 20 negative levels instead... how many would one expect to survive? Even an epic caster would be vulnerable to both the save and the negative levels (who says he has 100% hp, is awake, and has all his gear on when the spell strikes?).

[Ruck]

And if V had access to spells that can remotely kill so many creatures, many of which being quite powerful, you'd suspect that going into close range to duel Xykon wouldn't have been necessary.

Haerta was the soul with Familicide (and the most powerful of the three), and Vaarsuvius lost hold of her shortly after defeating the ABD.

[Goblin_Priest]

Haerta was the soul with Familicide (and the most powerful of the three), and Vaarsuvius lost hold of her shortly after defeating the ABD.

Good point, I was only recalling the impact of the negative levels off-hand and forgot about this.

[Jasdoif]

The only random sample we have for witnessing the effect is the Draketooth family. Some have stipulated that if a save was allowed, at least 5% would survive regardless of how high the DC is... but that's only if it's a save that negates the effect, instead of being a save for partial. If it's a DC 60: failure brings instant death, success gives 20 negative levels instead... how many would one expect to survive?

At what point should a line be drawn between "no save" and "passing the save has the same end result as failing the save"? Should save everyone the trouble and go the cloudkill route with "automatically kill any affected creature with 20 or fewer HD (no save)".

[Goblin_Priest]

At what point should a line be drawn between "no save" and "passing the save has the same end result as failing the save"? Should save everyone the trouble and go the cloudkill route with "automatically kill any affected creature with 20 or fewer HD (no save)".

That could work too.

[IndigoFenix]

Judging by how Familicide was depicted and described (by V) due to the logic of the spell, even if it does technically have a saving throw, there is a good chance that each target can be hit multiple times, anywhere from one to infinite depending on how the spell works exactly.

My reasoning is as follows:

Every direct relative of the target dies, and then every direct relative of theirs dies, and so on until their entire family is dead. Let us presume that "blood relative" for each "link" in the chain refers to direct parents and children, propagating in both directions. We can see this because Tarquin's last wife was killed by the spell. She had a daughter from Orrin Draketooth, so the spell must have propagated from Orrin to his daughter (child link) and then propagated back up to kill her mother (parent link). However, Tarquin himself did not die - because he did not have a child from her, and the spell does not consider spouses to be "blood relatives".

Now, there are several ways one can interpret this:

1. The spell does not propagate back the way it came, meaning that each creature is hit only once. This would mean that a saving throw is possible, which may save a whole branch of the family if it succeeds.

2. Each secondary target renews the spell as though they were the primary target, but can only become a primary source once. A saving throw can prevent them from being killed and also prevents them from propagating the effect - until they are hit again. This makes things much more interesting - basically it means that the bigger the family is, the more times each family member is "hit" by the spell. Each affected target means another casting on every other target, making it virtually impossible to stand against, unless it is "stopped" very close to the original target before it has a chance to get rolling - for instance, if the target's father and mother are both powerful mages who both manage to make their saving throw, confining the spell's effect to its original target.

3. Each secondary target becomes a primary target, and will become a primary target each time it is "hit". If this is the case, the end result will be that the spell basically "bounces" up and down the family tree, from parent to child and back again, hitting each target infinite times until they are all dead, regardless of whether or not a saving throw technically exists.

It is possible, though, that one member of the family may be such a powerful epic mage that they will always make their saving throw, even if they are hit by it a thousand times - this will also protect that mage's children from being affected. Alternately, there is a counterspell that blocks the effect. Of course, this depends on how you interpret a Natural 1.

Since this chain reaction must propagate through individuals who are already dead at the time the spell is cast (otherwise it would only extend as far as the target's closest living ancestor and their descendants), being dead is not a barrier for the spell. This means that if a target is killed by Familicide on the first "pass", it can still propagate through them as though they were alive. Whether or not a dead target can make a saving throw from the afterlife to protect their family is probably best left up to the GM.

[Jasdoif]

Every direct relative of the target dies, and then every direct relative of theirs dies, and so on....

There is no "so on". Anyone directly related by blood to the target dies; then anyone directly related by blood to anyone already killed by the spell also dies. There's no recursion past that point.

[IndigoFenix]

There is no "so on". Anyone directly related by blood to the target dies; then anyone directly related by blood to anyone already killed by the spell also dies. There's no recursion past that point.

Ah, interesting - I hadn't seen that post. So it looks from those rules that Familicide is not normally as pervasive as it appeared to be when V used it, and more importantly does not propagate through already-dead relatives. In fact, if the target had not been a dragon (and an ancient one at that) and had there not been a clan directly related to said dragon known for having children with foreigners, it seems likely that the total death toll would be much, much smaller. Familicide used on a normal human would probably kill only the target's parents, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and first cousins at most - in other words, the people likely to avenge the death of the target.

EDIT: Just realized - this means that, even without a saving throw, someone might be able to avoid the spell by killing one of the links in the chain moments before the spell was cast - a cousin who killed their own grandparents, for instance (hey, they were going to die anyway, right?). Which could be interesting for story-telling purposes...

[Kish]

Those are certainly other words, with other meanings.

(I can think of a lot of people who would be far more likely to be avenged by not-blood relatives than blood relatives, starting with myself and going on to the ancient black dragon in the comic. Would Orrin Draketooth have killed Vaarsuvius for her? Highly unlikely. Will her already-dead mate's brother? Substantially less unlikely. If someone had killed Vaarsuvius pre-Familicide, who should they be afraid of coming for vengeance: 1) Vaarsuvius' parents, because blood uber alles. 2) Inkyrius. 3) Vaarsuvius' and Inkyrius' adopted children. 4) Aarindarius. Only if you answer is "1" would Familicide avoid it.)

[IndigoFenix]

Those are certainly other words, with other meanings.

(I can think of a lot of people who would be far more likely to be avenged by not-blood relatives than blood relatives, starting with myself and going on to the ancient black dragon in the comic. Would Orrin Draketooth have killed Vaarsuvius for her? Highly unlikely. Will her already-dead mate's brother? Substantially less unlikely.)

True, but the spell was probably not created to semi-genocide dragons. Haerta was an evil mage, she probably used it to kill people and avoid having to deal with their relatives going all Inigo Montoya on her. And even if there are people with close friends or adopted relatives who would avenge them, blood avengers are a common enough trope that avoiding them full-stop would be of practical use for an evil murderer.

Alternatively, she might have done it just to be extra cruel. Probably elements of both.

[Kish]

Your first paragraph didn't address what I'd said but seems intended to, so let me rephrase for more directness.

I disagree utterly with your assertion that blood relatives are more likely to avenge than non-blood relatives, in both the general and the specific cases.

[dancrilis]

And even if there are people with close friends or adopted relatives who would avenge them, blood avengers are a common enough trope that avoiding them full-stop would be of practical use for an evil murderer.

Ah ... Eugene was on a blood oath of vengence against Xykon.

By undiscriminatingly killing someone you run the risk of annoying someone who knew that person, by undiscriminatingly killing a family you run the risk of annoying someone who knew any individual within that family ... which would be a much broader pool.

All anyone of them needs to do is visit the Oracle and ask the right question ... frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there are half a dozen adventuring parties started at locations around the world whos sole aim is to determined what happened to some of their friends and seek justice.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It seems hard to judge who would be more likely to avenge Haerta's victims without knowing anything about the culture she lived in or the people she considered her enemies?