Does a Death Ward Protect against Phantasmal Killer?

[Berk]

Point out that he could not get everywhere in time.

ok, usually I am good at this but if you are using that as an example to prove that santa does not exist then you would be wrong cuz going by that example he would exist. It's called Bell's theorem. the wonderful seamless whole.

wow, I just used quantum physics to prove santa exists!!!!

 

[Celtavian]

Re

The reason it is difficult to come to a conclusion accepted by all concering the Death Ward spell is because it is a poorly written spell.

We decided to not have Death Ward protect against Phantasmal Killer. We have never allowed Death Ward to protect against disintegrate, and we never will unless they officially list disintegration as a death effect.

We do allow Death Ward to protect against a Symbol of Death, and we will continue to do so.

Ultimately, it will be up to the DM and players to come to a reasonable agreement on how to arbitrate the Death Ward spell. We can only hope the sage addresses this spell sometime soon.

 

[IceBear]

Icebear I already answered that question.

Go attack my answer, or provide something new. Until them go away.

No you didn't, you just basically said you don't agree. The death ward spell is preventing a MAGICAL death effect from killing you. All phantasmal killer is doing is creating an illusion. That's the effect of the spell. Now, if you believe that illusion then your body undergoes a lot of stress (Fort save) and if you can't handle that stress you die (that's natural, not extraordinary). All the other magical death effects DIRECTLY kill you. Yes, the actual manner in how they kill you is not fleshed out, but death is not the SECONDARY effect of the spell. The death ward is blocking the primary effects. Is death by massive damage (also due to the stress your body suffers) a death effect? You have to make a Fort save don't you?

jmichels`said it better on page 2. PK is not a death effect.

IceBear

 

[da chicken]

Xylix's problem is he's useing the wrond definition of 'death.' He keeps referring to www.dictionary.com for some reason.

D&D has a special operational definition (also known as jargon) for 'death effect.' A 'death effect' is not any effect which causes the target to die, in spite of the fact that common sense (i.e., logic) would dictate otherwise.

That is why Xylix's logic fails him. His logic argument is just fine, but his premises are flawed.

In D&D, a 'death effect' is any effect (meaning spell or magical effect) with the [Death] descriptor ascribed to it. That's it. By this definition of 'death effect,' phantasmal killer is not a 'death effect'. So while phantasmal killer fits a definition for 'death effect,' it doesn't use the correct definition for 'death effect.'

You can make the opinionated argument that spell X or effect Y should be a 'death effect,' but that would not make a logically deductive argument (which is what you're trying to say you've got).

Oh, and saying "the PH might be misprinted!" is a really bad argument. It is equally likely that: a) the [Death] descriptor was placed on spells it shouldn't be on, b) death ward is in error, c) a more explicit definition of 'death effect' was mistakenly left out, etc. We must assume that the PH/DMG/et al are correct until we receive direct evidence in the form of errata that they are not. Suggesting that errors in the PH/DMG/et al might be the cause is a logical fallacy in itself: appeal to fear or emotion.

 

[hong]

It is equally likely that: a) the [Death] descriptor was placed on spells it shouldn't be on, b) death ward is in error, c) a more explicit definition of 'death effect' was mistakenly left out, etc.

A flat prior is not always the best choice.

We must assume that the PH/DMG/et al are correct until we receive direct evidence in the form of errata that they are not. Suggesting that errors in the PH/DMG/et al might be the cause is a logical fallacy in itself: appeal to fear or emotion.

As a general rule, I think mathematicians should not get into arguments about the real world.

 

[0-hr]

Re: Re

The reason it is difficult to come to a conclusion accepted by all concering the Death Ward spell is because it is a poorly written spell.

If a spell does not say "[Death]", it ain't no death spell.
If an effect does not say "death effect", it ain't no death effect.

It's not really that complicated, and the only clarification I could possible see would be a line that says something like "a Death spell is a spell with the [Death] descriptor". Really though, that's pretty darn obvious to most people.

 

[da chicken]

A flat prior is not always the best choice.

Ok.

First: Huh?

Second: I wasn't making those arguments, I was suggesting arguments that would also be supported by his [flawed] premise.

As a general rule, I think mathematicians should not get into arguments about the real world.

Again: Huh? What does math have to do with a logical argument? Math proofs use logical premises, but a logic is meant to be applied to any argument. Logic is a method of preserving truth and drawing conclusions from evidence.



More to the point, what does D&D have to do with the real world?

 

[hong]

(priors)

Ok.

First: Huh?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesianAnalysis.html

Just because there are multiple possibilities to start with, does not mean each possibility is equally likely.

Again: Huh? What does math have to do with a logical argument? Math proofs use logical premises, but a logic is meant to be applied to any argument. Logic is a method of preserving truth and drawing conclusions from evidence.

Formal logic is not the be-all and end-all of a discussion.

More to the point, what does D&D have to do with the real world?

Nothing. Typos in D&D rulebooks, however, have everything to do with the real world.

 

[da chicken]

Formal logic is not the be-all and end-all of a discussion.

That was the method Xylix was using to try and prove his case. I felt it most appropriate to use the same method to prove him wrong. Logical arguments tend to come off as invulnerable until you use logic to reveal the weaknesses. Note that this is exactly what you did to my argument. [So there! ]

And fair enough about flat priors. The point is that I knew those statements to be incorrect. My argument was simply that his new premise (the PH has errors) could also be used to prove his other premises incorrect. If "errors exist" means that phantasmal killer is wrong, it might also mean his other arguments are wrong.

And while that last statement isn't deductively valid, it isn't necessarily incorrect. Or, as you said, "formal logic is not the be-all and end-all of a discussion."

 

[FlimFlam]

It eliminated anything that kills by indirect means, or does not actually 'kill' per say. Damage is indirect you take damage THEN die, you lose attribute points THEN die. With phatasmal killer this is not the case. You just die.

Kinda like Phantasmal Killer spell, huh? The fearsome image that you see would be as indirect as the damage you take from Fireball. You see your worse fear THEN die.

Phantasmal Killer is also not a "save or die" spell. It is a "save or be feared" spell. And the effect of the fear which is created by the spell would be "save or die".

It is generally a bad idea to apply logic towards the rules of a fantasy game, especially one where magic is involved. Magic tends to throw all "logical" arguements right out the window.