Does a Death Ward Protect against Phantasmal Killer?

[Caliban]

What is eating you today, Caliban ?

Nothing really. I simply have a limited amount of time which I can devote to these boards, and I'm not going to waste it on tripe like that. I'm not interested in participating in his condescending style of pseudo-logic.

Since he has stated that he won't act like a reasonable adult, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on him. He's simply not worth it.

 

[Xylix]

for i = 0 to threadcount
for j = 0 to postcount
if (username == "Xylix") then
if (INT < 5) then
trollcount = trollcount + 1
else
trollcount = troullcount - 1
end if
next j
next i

if (trollcount > 0) then
Set ignore("Xylix") = TRUE
end if

Not quite more like ....

for (int i = 0; i < Postcount; i++)
{
  user.getUser (i);
 if (strcmp ( user.name, "Xylix") == 0)
    {
     if  (Postcount > user.lastpost)
        {
          user.addPost();
                  for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
                     user.addtoPost(i,hotair.random());
        }
    }
}

That has been the approach of non-listeners for many a year

Nothing really. I simply have a limited amount of time which I can devote to these boards, and I'm not going to waste it on tripe like that. I'm not interested in participating in his condescending style of pseudo-logic.

Perhaps you should keep with your plans other than posting here

If you wish I would like to see you attempt to argue that my logic is pseudo logic. Sounds fun!!!

I find people that say in a post that they are not participlating any more amusing. Especially when they never did participate

That is just me.

 

[AuraSeer]

This strongly implies that anything that flatly says 'save or die' is a death effect[...]

That does not follow. If the SRD says, "Most death effects allow Fort saves," that does not mean that anything with a Fort save is a death effect.

If I say that "most cars are metal," that does not imply that all metal objects are cars.

[...] otherwise an assasins death attack is not actually a death effect since it does not say that it is.

If the death attack is not labelled as a Death Effect (note the distinction), what makes you think it is one? IIRC it's an Extraordinary ability, and Death Ward does not protect against it, just as it won't protect an ordinary CDG.

[typo]

 

[AGGEMAM]

That does not follow. If the SRD says, "Most death effects allow Fort saves," that does not mean that anything with a Fort save is a death effect.

If I say that "most cars are metal," that does not imply that all metal objects are cars.

It say 'most' because not at all death effects or spells actually allow a save.

Btw, the DMG, page 74, says that DW does protect against death attacks, magical or otherwise.

 

[Xylix]

good good an attack on a premise!! We are on a roll today!

That does not follow. If the SRD says, "Most death effects allow Fort saves," that does not mean that anything with a Fort save is a death effect.

If I say that "most cars are metal," that does not imply that all metal objects are cars.

It does exactly what he said. It strongly implies that those requiring a save or die are death effects.

You are misreading his statment. He never claimed that all fort saves are death effects. He just used it as evidence that Fort save or die are probably death effects.

You are misreading his statement.


It merely means that in all probability Phantasmal killer is a death effect, unless you can give a reason it isnt?

If the attack is not labelled as a Death Effect (note the distinction), what makes you think it is one?

What makes him think it is one? My guess is :

#1 : It is save or die
#2 : You fail your save you die, no fancy stuff.
#3 : It seems pretty obvious it would not effect a construct.
#4 : It meets the english definition of death effect.

and proably more, I am sure he can enlighten you on his exactreasoning. But I think those are good starting guesses.

IIRC it's an Extraordinary ability, and Death Ward does not protect against it, just as it won't protect an ordinary CDG.

Not important, it is merely example evidence. Whether or not it is supernatural has no impact on its power.

 

[AuraSeer]

It say 'most' because not at all death effects or spells actually allow a save.

The word "most" is irrelevant.

You quoted a line that says death effects tend to have Fort saves. This is a one-way implication. It says absolutely nothing to indicate that a Fort save implies a death effect.

 

[AGGEMAM]

The word "most" is irrelevant.

You quoted a line that says death effects tend to have Fort saves. This is a one-way implication. It says absolutely nothing to indicate that a Fort save implies a death effect.

Check the DMG entry.

 

[Caliban]

The Phantasmal Killer spell has the Illusion (Phantasm)[Fear, Mind-Affecting] Descriptor.

Does Death Ward only protect against Necromancy (Death) Spells or all magical death effects?

In any case, to answer your question Celtavian: The death ward spell will not protect against the phantasmal killer spell.

Phantasmal Killer is a not a death effect, it's a lethal fear effect.

The death ward spell, courtesy of the SRD:

Death Ward

Necromancy
Level: Clr 4, Death 4, Drd 5, Pal 4
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

The subject is immune to all death spells and magical death effects. The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or other effects even if they might be lethal.

Note that the spell description makes a distinction between death spells and magical death effects. This indicates that there spells that are death effects, and things that are not spells that are death effects.

Phantasmal Killer is a spell, but doesn't have the [Death] descriptor. Therefore it's not a "death spell."

Is it a "magical death effect"? No, it's not, and here's why:

If you can have a spell that is not a "death spell" but still count as a "magical death effect" why even make the distinction? Death Ward would just say it "protects against all magical death effects." Since it does make that distinction between the two, then "magical death effects" would seem to strongly imply magical death effects other than spells.


Furthermore, as the Death Ward spell itself makes clear, not every magical effect that causes death is in fact a "magical death effect". It states: "The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or other effects even if they might be lethal."

This makes it clear that there are other save or die effects that are not classified as "death effects".

Phantasmal Killer is very clearly a fear effect, and a lethal one at that. It is not clearly a "death effect". If it was a death effect, it should be in the spell descriptor or in the spell description. The spell description indicates that they die of fear, which reinforces the [Fear] descriptor. Nothing about it being a "death effect" though.

Death Ward doesn't help against fear effects.

Most death effects have "save or die" fortitude saves, but not every effect with a lethal fortitude save is a death effect. Disintigrate, phantasmal killer, and even the poison spell are all examples of spells that can instantly kill you if you fail a fort save, but are not "death spells" and therefore are not implicitly death effects.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Phantasmal Killer is clearly a Fear effect. Paladins are immune.

Just because a spell can cause instant death does not make it a death effect. Disintegrate is a clear example. Does Death Ward protect against Disintegrate? I don't think so. Does Death Ward protect against Phantasmal Killer? I don't think so.

 

[Xylix]

Ahh a good argument!!!!

Note that the spell description makes a distinction between death spells and magical death effects.

I agree it makes a distinction between death spells and magical death effects.

This indicates that there spells that are death effects, and things that are not spells that are death effects.

This does not neccarily follow. Just because there are classes that are death spells, and magical death effects does not mean that these classes are by anymeans exclusive.

Thus throwing out spells is not automatic. There is no indication that spells are not magical death effects. If you would like to argue otherwise go ahead.

For evidence let use look around:

www.dictionary.com

Magical :
1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic.
2. Performed by, or proceeding from, occult and superhuman agencies; done by, or seemingly done by, enchantment or sorcery. Hence: Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary; having extraordinary properties; as, a magic lantern; a magic square or circle.


Spells are quite clearly magical.

Is it a "magical death effect"? No, it's not, and here's why:

Here in lies the real differentation. How are the words 'death effect' used in the spell. Do they refer to an internal definition concering only those magics that clearly state death effect?

The problem arises between the split of these ideas. I contend based on a few things:

#1 : Death spells use a fort save or die, if they have a save.

#2 : Not all magical death effects clearly lable themselves as death effect. The DMG clearly consideres the Bodak's gaze to be a death effect, infact it describes it as an example on page 74 of the DMG.

#3 : Phantasmal Killer meets all english definitions of death effect.

#4 : All named exclusions are not direct death effects, they dish out damage or cause transmutations. Phantasmal killer does neither.

#5 : The nature through which the death effect must cause death is never stated. It merely states death effect.

#6 : The spell kills by for all practical purpose convincing you that you have been hit by a death spell. (even with the after effect damage!) Just like an illusionary firball hurts by convincing you that you have been hit by a real fireball.

#7 : If you are immune to death magic you couldn't be convinced that you have been effected by a death spell.

#8 : The following sentance names exceptions. Once again, had they not been applied by either of the dual joined statements then why would obvious exceptions needed to be named?

#9 : If you can conclude that your fear killed you, then one can conclude that your lack of life force killed you. In either case one would not be protected against such spells.




VS

#1 but still count as a "magical death effect" why even make the distinction?


#2 : Furthermore, as the Death Ward spell itself makes clear, not every magical effect that causes death is in fact a "magical death effect". It states: "The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or other effects even if they might be lethal."


#3 : Most death effects have "save or die" fortitude saves, but not every effect with a lethal fortitude save is a death effect. Disintigrate, phantasmal killer, and even the poison spell are all examples of spells that can instantly kill you if you fail a fort save, but are not "death spells" and therefore are not implicitly death effects.

#1 is an interesting argument. Why make the distinction? Perhaps the latter line was added because the first line was not inclusive enough. English often contains a great deal of redundancy.

Effectively you are attempting to say that magical death effects was purposely created to be exclusive from death spells. Even if I grant you that, I aggree death spells replies to the expected descriptor.

As such excluding death spells, magical death effects could have been created to include such spells as Phantasmal killer, as well as supernatural effects, or other spells that are death spells but try to loophole through using various means...

Such as 'human combustion" ect...

#2: You say it makes itself clear that not every magical effect that causes death is a death effect.

This correct, it throws out a group of spells that neccessarily have a step that is not actively death. It names spells that transmute. So Polymorph Other into a fish over land is not a death spell. You become a fish, then you die from nothing related to the spell, of lack of air. The actions are completely seperate.

Ability damage, you take damage damage, then as a completely seperate action that applies to ability damage and has nothing to spell you die from 0 con.

HP damage which acts like ability damage. The spell doesn't concern itself with the mechanics of how damage operates on the player.

Then we have pertification, a non dead state that removes the character from battle.


None of these effects have anywhere in them the words death effect. Most do not have the word death, or even words associated to death in their description or any correlating description. Yet these clearly had to be exempted.

However, you do not see a single example of a spell that causes instant death as a function of its magic in the list of exceptions. One would think that would be the best example.

It also states spells that are lethal through other means, however this is in comparrison with all the given examples. Every single one of those is lethal by means of damage, ability damage, lack of oxogen. Not a single one is directly lethal.


As such it isn't a very strong example, it never even gets close to addressing spells that are literally save or die. A single example of one of those in that would however have made this statement VERY strong. Unfortunately for you there isn't.


Then we have #3, there are fortitude saves for other lethal effects and you name.

Poison : Is a direct ability damage spell, clearly cast aside. It has no save or die function at all included in it.

Disintegrate : I have already addressed this, it is either a death effect or a transumtation. If it is a transmutation it is quite nasty, given that you must polymorph the individual back before raising him... Heck, you could argue the player never died, he just turned into dust. As such a single polymorph would recover him.

This works well with some past classical interpetations of disintegration I have seen in various movies / books over the years (not a common one....)

Otherwise it is merely a fancey ranged touch death effect.

And mentioning the spell in question as an example is a very bad thing to do in a premise. It is the fallicy of begging the question. No one would accept your example unless they already accepted your conclusion.


This is by far the best support for 'not a death effect' yet though, and cannot be completely disbanded for lack of information (which would probably solve the whole issue...)