Blasphemy..!

[Elder-Basilisk]

The Dazed party would be just as susceptible to damage as if they weren't dazed. You retain your Dex bonus to AC while dazed, attackers get no bonus to attack you while dazed, and you can still make Reflex saves- you just can't take any actions. So anything that they'd be able to do to a Dazed party they'd be able to do just as well as a non-Dazed party- they just wouldn't be able to retaliate.

If a party is weak enough to be killed in a single round, then Blasphemy isn't the issue- the encounter is the issue.

Not so. Giving a high level group one round of unanswered actions will often be enough to decide a battle. After the horrid wilting and fireball hit, it's likely that the party is still standing. Ordinarily, the party would have spread out a bit more and wouldn't all have been in the area of both spells. Ordinarily the party cleric would then heal the fighter and the fighter would get in the way of the opposing barbarian, or, if the fighter wasn't that badly off yet, he might cast recitation or flamestrike and the party wizard would feeblemind the opposing sorceror. Instead, after the blasphemy, the opposing barbarian is able to charge and if he doesn't drop his target he is likely to weaken him enough that he will be in immenant danger of dropping the next round. After Blasphemy, the party is almost certain to start out on very defensive footing.

And, of course, nearly any evil cleric who can cast blasphemy once can cast it twice. Two rounds of unanswered actions is, IME, enough to defeat almost any party--even with an encounter that wouldn't normally run the risk of defeating them.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Interesting logic. A Coup de Grace attack primarily causes death. True, it causes damage as well, but that's just a pleasant side effect. And yet, nobody is arguing that a Coup de Grace is protected against by Death Ward. Also, some poisons cause Instant Death. Does Death Ward protect against such poisons?

I assume he meant that Death Ward would protect against any supernatural, spell-like abilities or spells that cause instant death.

In 3.0, Death Ward wouldn't have worked against a Symbol of Death. In 3.5, they split up the symbols into many spells, and gave Symbol of Death the [death] descriptor. But they couldn't split the different effects of the Blasphemy spell...

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Death Ward does not work against all spells that kill, Implosion being the one that stands out foremost in my mind. Implosion is an evocation and is not a death effect.

Indeed. Implosion doesn't snuff out your life force. It compacts you into an infinitely small volume.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You changed your stance since last this was discussed. I was using the info you gave me. Apparently in the spell description it said the banishment affect worked even if the person did not hear the word.

That's right. So the banishment occurs even if you're deaf.

But Silence doesn't just prevent you hearing; it also provides a defence against sonic attacks. That's quite different.

If my position's changed, it's happened without my realising it - I don't recall arguing that someone in a Silence area would still be banished, but it's possible I did and have forgotten it

But I think my argument has always been that a deaf creature is still banished, not a Silenced one.

-Hyp.

 

[foxylady]

Because blasphemy is not a death spell (= spell with the [death] descriptor), a magical death effect (still no [death] descriptor; that's really meant for stuff like the bodak's death gaze, tho), energy drain, nor negative energy attack.

I would argue, then, that Blasphemy's failure to have the Death descriptor is an error, not to mention terribly unbalanced. "Cast spell == you die" is IMO indisputably a Death effect.

 

[Bauglir]

I would argue, then, that Blasphemy's failure to have the Death descriptor is an error, not to mention terribly unbalanced. "Cast spell == you die" is IMO indisputably a Death effect.

Disintegrate (3.0)?

 

[Celtavian]

re

I would argue, then, that Blasphemy's failure to have the Death descriptor is an error, not to mention terribly unbalanced. "Cast spell == you die" is IMO indisputably a Death effect.

No it isn't. That is why they use the death descriptor to designate that a spell is specifically a death spell. Some spells kill differently, and the only mechanic D&D has to show this is descriptors. They use them to differentiate one type of spell from another.

 

[Celtavian]

re

That's right. So the banishment occurs even if you're deaf.

But Silence doesn't just prevent you hearing; it also provides a defence against sonic attacks. That's quite different.

If my position's changed, it's happened without my realising it - I don't recall arguing that someone in a Silence area would still be banished, but it's possible I did and have forgotten it

But I think my argument has always been that a deaf creature is still banished, not a Silenced one.

-Hyp.

Here is the quote Hype:

Dazed, weakened, paralyzed, and killed, yes; banishment happens anyway. (It explicitly states "regardless of whether they hear the Blasphemy".)

-Hyp.

from this thread I started.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=63962

Your usually right on your rulings, but you changed your stance on this one. I had been playing it this way for sometime with the banishment still working even with a silence spell in effect.

 

[Thanee]

I would argue, then, that Blasphemy's failure to have the Death descriptor is an error, not to mention terribly unbalanced. "Cast spell == you die" is IMO indisputably a Death effect.

As Celtavian said, there are numerous ways to be killed (even directly) from a spell. Some of those invoke the power of death and are henceforth named and labeled as death spells.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here is the quote Hype...

Heh. Okay, looks like I have changed my position.



-Hyp.