Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xylix" data-source="post: 502176" data-attributes="member: 9089">You are speaking of refrences, the abilities themselves have no descripters.   Thus you agree that effects described in text, confer a spell a nature without a descriptor tag.You fail to understand the nature of an argument.  You first stated:I pointed out that this wasn't sufficient counter argument because it fails to address the second point of the spell.  The very part I origionally brought up.Thus when I pointed out once again I was looking at the second part you stated:I asked on what presumption did you make that it must have a descriptor.   Apparently this is completely your own conclution.However, the descriptors (provided in tags above spells, as explained in the PHB before approaching the spell lists)next I agree, thus Phantamal Killer is a death spell.However, the problem arises because the descriptor now can be internal text.  Therefore if I see the word  'death'  or a word that implies death.  I can conclude, as  I have, the spell is a death spell because that is what YOU have done.  You have now accepted an intrinsic premise to my argument, you have not disproved it.Which was the entire point of bringing it up in the first place.  The death ward spell excluded that AFTER the primary sentance, meaning that the primary sentance did INDEED contain these factors.  Which is why the developers added those exceptions.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.It did not use what would if your conclusion was correct, use the extremely simple explanation of that 'it does not apply to any spell without a death descriptor'So quick to exclude,  so what, they are now on the list.  It still is the case of #4.   You have failed to prove anything.   You have failed to even show this is flawed.To do that you need a counter point, show that the save is for something else, not death, cause directly through magic.Show an example ANYWHERE in the books of fear killing through 'non-magic' perhaps you have an excuse. That would nullify the point,  showing that there are more examples that don't apply is as pointless as pointing the sun rises.You have not offered an arugment.  You have no basis for your reasoning.  You draw upon nothing for your statements.  You merely make them.  Your statements continually fail to hold water.Why they heck should I belive you?   Because YOU said so?  I think not, if you wish to state a contending point you got to support it.  That is the very nature of logic, no one will accept your argument unless they agree with your premise.   Your premise IS your argument and I don't accept it.</blockquote>

Verification