Defenses against Blasphemy?

[Hypersmurf]

It appears that the strength penalties would not stack since it is not actual str damage and the rules say:
"In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies."

Blasphemy is instantaneous... is the first spell still 'operating' on the target when the second is cast?

It looks like an instantaneous effect that causes a temporary decrease in the subject's Str score, rather than a lingering spell that maintains that decrease.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Blasphemy is instantaneous... is the first spell still 'operating' on the target when the second is cast?

It looks like an instantaneous effect that causes a temporary decrease in the subject's Str score, rather than a lingering spell that maintains that decrease.

-Hyp.

Hm. I could buy that, but I'm not yet convinced it's a self-evident conclusion. Example: Even though Unhollow is an instantaneous spell, the (unamed) -4 penalty it gives to charisma checks to turn undead likely wouldn't stack (assuming multiple unhallows).

Since the other effects of Blasphemy, dictum, holy-word and word of chaos do not stack with themselves, I'm unsure if this should be different.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hm. I could buy that, but I'm not yet convinced it's a self-evident conclusion. Example: Even though Unhollow is an instantaneous spell, the (unamed) -4 penalty it gives to charisma checks to turn undead likely wouldn't stack (assuming multiple unhallows)

If Blasphemy imposed a penalty, I'd assume it didn't stack - two penalties arising from the same source generally don't (which is how I'd rule Unhallow). A bit like inherent bonuses - instantaneous, but they don't stack.

But Blasphemy doesn't use the penalty mechanic - it's a decrease. (About the only other thing I can think of that imposes a decrease on an ability is Bestow Curse. We don't really have a lot of information about how it works, but it seems to me that it's sort of the opposite of the increase to one ability score every four levels...)

-Hyp.

 

[Wik]

*shrug*

My version of that house rule translates to "I'd rather run a game of heroic fantasy, thanks." And I've never once thrown blasphemy at the PCs.

As far as defenses against it, I've found the best one is to convince the DM to add a saving throw for partial effect.

In a recent STAP game, a random encounter table threw a Hezrou at my (8th level) PCs. I got ready to run it, had it cast Blasphemy... and then looked up the spell and realized everyone in my group was now pretty much dead.

I did allow a will save, and enough of the group survived (roughly half) that they were able to fight this guy. They won it, but just barely.

One of my big beefs in the STAP path was putting a Hezrou on their wandering monster lists.

Yeah, the spell needs a partial save.

 

[mvincent]

If Blasphemy imposed a penalty, I'd assume it didn't stack - two penalties arising from the same source generally don't

Is it established that the stacking rules only apply to bonuses and penalties?

About the only other thing I can think of that imposes a decrease on an ability is Bestow Curse.

So would you say that multiple curses stack in regard to ability score decrease (even though they would not if the penalty options were used... and I'm not sure how to view the 50% chance to act normally option)?

Also, do you now believe that it is the lack of a "penalty" labeling that allows stacking (rather than the "instantaneous" argument presented earlier)? Or do you believe that both conditions must be met to allow stacking?

I'm not saying you are wrong, merely playing devils advocate (for discussion and exploration purposes). The rules don't seem to detail such interactions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is it established that the stacking rules only apply to bonuses and penalties?

Well, 'stack' only appears in reference to bonuses and penalties in the magic overview.

So would you say that multiple curses stack in regard to ability score decrease (even though they would not if the penalty options were used... and I'm not sure how to view the 50% chance to act normally option)?

No, because the duration is permanent, which means both spells are operating on the same target, so only the best one applies.

Also, do you now believe that it is the lack of a "penalty" labeling that allows stacking (rather than the "instantaneous" argument presented earlier)? Or do you believe that both conditions must be met to allow stacking?

Well, we have this:
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.

but also this:
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.

So if it provides a penalty to other attributes, it will not stack with itself. And if the same spell is operating multiple times on the same target (like Bestow Curse), only the best applies.

But if a spell that doesn't provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes and that has an instantaneous duration affects the same target twice, it works cumulatively.

-Hyp.

 

[lottrbacchus]

Hmmm, 2 disagreementishes with hyp!
A)

Well, we have this:
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.

but also this:
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.


-Hyp.

Actually, it is the other way around. We have:
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.
followed by:
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.

Which seems to me to mean that non-instantaneous same spells almost never stack, while instantaneous effects do.

B)

Personally, my inclination with Blasphemy is to incorporate a line from the 3E spell:
Creatures native to the character's plane who hear the blasphemy and are not evil suffer the following ill effects...

For the average PC, this means that a Blasphemy cast as a 7th level spell by the evil cleric will daze you... but usually only once. Whereas the Blasphemy as an at-will spell-like ability nine rounds in a row by the Balor won't, because you're not native to his plane.

Don't you mean "Whereas the Blasphemy as an at-will spell-like ability nine rounds in a row by the Balor won't, because Blasphemy would be an utterly useless ability for a Balor. That is unless there are non-evil natives to the lower planes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Don't you mean "Whereas the Blasphemy as an at-will spell-like ability nine rounds in a row by the Balor won't, because Blasphemy would be an utterly useless ability for a Balor. That is unless there are non-evil natives to the lower planes.

No, because the banishment effect worked on non-natives.

Natives? Dazed, Weakened, etc. Extraplanar? Banished.

Hence, for the Balor, it's a "Get off my plane" ability.

-Hyp.

 

[lottrbacchus]

No, because the banishment effect worked on non-natives.

Natives? Dazed, Weakened, etc. Extraplanar? Banished.

Hence, for the Balor, it's a "Get off my plane" ability.

-Hyp.

And that is what I get for staying up too late and posting!

I still think the instantaneous effects are cumulative though.

Glad I read this thread, since now I am going to align Blasphemy with Holy Word, since my world is full of half-fiends and demons and the party is half-celestial.

EDIT: No, wait a minute- so yeah a Balor's Blasphemy (amended) would only banish non-native outsiders. All native Outsiders are evil and so immune to the spell, not dazed etc.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

One presumes it works like any other readied action: the readied action occurs immediately before the action that triggers it. Attacking an opponent with a sword is an action. Once the attack is assigned, the dice are rolled, and the effect happens. Instantaneously. But, if I readied an action to attack my opponent if he attacks (perhaps there is some mexican standoff occurring) then my attack occurs before my opponent's attack and if my attack kills my opponent, then his attack--the one that set off my readied action--never occurs. The basic conceptual problem you describe is a part of all readied actions whether they are moving out of an area of effect or attacking someone who breaks the peace.

Now, maybe depending upon the rulings of your DM, you may or may not be able to figure out what spell like ability an opponent is using, but blasphemy is the most consequential SLA most creatures that have it possess (even for the creatures that have Implosion or other 9th level abilities, this is often true), so preparing for a blasphemy is not bad tactics even if that's not what the opponent ends up using. And blasphemy has a conveniently fixed range and area of effect so you, even in a worst case scenario rules wise, you can still get out of the area.

I don't understand how this works. Once the spell is assigned an area, it functions (instantaneous). I'd say you cannot ready to move out of the area because until it's already in effect you don't know the area. Of course, you may mean "move away from the rest of the fodder when recognizing (spellcraft) the enemy casting blasphemy." Note, however, that based on the OP's example even that becomes problematic because the blasphemy is a SPA, not a spell. (another argued point about whether spellcraft can discern the SPA as it is 'cast')