[BoED Broken!] Do these two spells really cancel out?

[Sarellion]

If you are not comfortable with the deity changing the spell there is always the possibility that the deity restricts access to spells. In this case I would say that this restriction is total and permanent.

But the power comes from your god, he has the final word how it is used, especially 9th level spells. Most of the time you get what you want but not every time. I think it is even stated somewhere in the rulebook.

This is different from enhancing spells by the deity. If the deity restricts a spell used by his priest, it is a purely internal matter between god and a chosen servant. If a god starts giving out goodies like SR breaching offensive spells he enhances powers affecting the outside world. Other gods will probably be offended by one god breaking the rules.

By the way perhaps he enhances the spells of the pious priest once in a while. Not so much as you indicated but something like empower could be ok or a spell breaches SR if the player missed by one.

 

[ruleslawyer]

That would cause problems with me too. That's opening the doors for all divine spells to breach SR, saves, immunities and whatnot just becuase the deity doesn't like them. Probably won't ever happen, but I would rather the doors not be allowed to go to that place.

Well, not quite. I'd imagine that a deity could cause a spell to fail, or to have lesser effects than intended, but not to have stronger effects. I don't think it's necessarily opening the door to have the deity refuse to let the spell work, or work to a lesser extent than desired.

 

[physics_ninja]

So, in other words, my 20th level cleric could cast Sublime Revelry on herself and companions, walk onto the battlefield, cast End to Strife and watch as my party slaughters the BBEG and minions (as the PCs are now immune to it).[quote/]

If I remember the spell correctly, it does 20d6 damage (average 70) to anyone who makes an attack. It seems to me that the intent is to prevent hostile actions with sever punishment for unacceptable behaviour. In other words to make everyone helpless.

(OK, they are not really helpless, but if they persist in attacking they'll die.)

So, my point is: What are the consequences for attacking helpless people?

 

[Savage Wombat]

And if attacking helpless people is an evil act, doesn't that violate the terms of casting an exalted spell in the first place?

Suddenly, a roll of thunder, and you find your spells stripped from you...

 

[ThirdWizard]

But would the deity allow a spell designed to stop battles be used instead as "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women" (as gfunk put it )?

I'd rather have a nice house rule change to the spell instead of an open ended statement like that, though. I don't want to be playing a game and have a DM suddenly declare that somesuch spell doesn't work quite the way I expected and then quote this spell to show me that he's already been doing stuff like this already. Maybe that's just my DM I have to look out for, though. He thinks things are cool and neat when stuff like that happens.

I say just get rid of the [Mind affecting] part of the spell. I locked my copy in my trunk so I can concentrate on my final projects, but from the description here it doesn't seem so mind affecting anyway.

If all else fails, using this spell in the mannar described might at best make the god question your religious furvor and require that you atone for your misdeed. That is perfectly acceptable by the rules, especially considering how Exalted characters are portrayed in the books. Remember, clerics are kept under strict adherance to the religious docterines, even moreso than paladins of particular gods. You can always cast both spells at the same time, and everyone give up their immunity (which as far as I can tell can be lowered just like any other immunity) so that the spell works on them. *shrug*

I just wouldn't say the power of the diety makes the spell bypass your immunity. Such would be inconsistant with D&D spell rules, as any diety would most likely want their spells cast by priest to always work in their favor and thus would always make the best outcome occur.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

And if attacking helpless people is an evil act, doesn't that violate the terms of casting an exalted spell in the first place?

Suddenly, a roll of thunder, and you find your spells stripped from you...

As my DM pointed out: it is not an "exalted" spell. It is in the BoED, yes - but is a generic clerical spell, not an exalted one as the exalted spells are described in the book.

I'm all for just removing the [Mind Affecting] descriptor from the spell, thus negating the argument - but my DM isn't very receptive to that idea for some reason. Oh well....

 

[Gez]

"This spell creates an invisible aura of divine power around the caster. All intelligent creatures within the spell's area suddenly become aware that any hostile actions they take will be met with dire consequences."

This, IMHO, is the mind-affecting part. The rest of the spell's effect is not especially mind-affecting.


"Any creature in the spell's area that makes an attack takes 20d6 points of damage. The caster decides whether the spell deals lethal or nonlethal damage but cannot change her mind once the spell is cast. Creatures with multiple attacks take the damage after every attack they make.

Targets outside the are of the spell may freely attack creatures in the are without taking damage from this spell."

This part is don't refer to intelligent creatures, or even to affected creatures, like most spells do...

 

[Vaxalon]

That's how I'd rule it. Anyone immune to mind-affecting spells would not get the warning, they'd still take the damage.