Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bryan898" data-source="post: 510598" data-attributes="member: 9085"><p>I can see the points about this spell "trumping" a diety.  However, I have a small disagreement.  The spell affects the PC, not the diety.  It in now way has to rival the dieties power or such, and effects the PC much in the way a mage armor spell would be cast.  You don't take away mage armor on a PC just because he's fighting a balor or something do you, just because it's significantly stronger than that specific spell.  The point is to stop the character from instant death effects, not stop the dieties spells / effects.  As for a measly 4th level spell... fireballs a measly 3rd level spell, unless cast by a 20th level caster.  I think the strength of the spell reflects the caster, hence why areas, damage, and dispelling are based on caster level.  So this measly 4th level spell isn't so measly when cast by a 50th level caster.  Next point against saying they're dieties and all powerful... As I'm watching D&D become more powerful ( with the epic level books and such)  PC's are able to reach this level to compete with such beings.  If it weren't so the Deities and Demigods book wouldnt have had so many statstics and fighting capabilities of dietes.  Let's face it, it happens, just look at the fantasy novels you read, the games you play, etc.  Many of them come to a point where the hero defeats a god or near god-like creature.  My job is to provide my PC's with a fun time, and I know that some of them are at the point where they want to challenge such a creature, and if Wizards didn't think this was going to happen they would have done the same as Planescape 2nd ed... I believe the line was "The dieties are unreachable.  A diety could turn you inside out and drop you on the last layer of hell with the movemnt of a finger."  The next thing is that I'm not looking for literal translations such as its not a death effect because it doesn't say so.  "Everyone knows the #1 cause of death is dying" (GTA3: Vice City).  Personally I don't think D&D should be translated literally, things are put there for reasons, it usually makes more sense to follow the reasoning behind the spell or rule than the literal translation.  Paying attention to the literal translation only would be much the same as the way the laws are literally translated.  Then we have rules lawyers much the same to real life lawyers (another rant for another time.)  However, what I do want is your opinion on whether or not it Annihilating Strike should be considered a magical death effect.  This is based on the description of the ability and what you think it doesn, not on the presumption that if something doesnt state "death effect" in it that it isn't something that causes death.  After all, by english defiinition thats what a death effect attack would be.  Thanks for any opinions.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification