Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xylix" data-source="post: 503908" data-attributes="member: 9089">Ahh a good argument!!!!I agree it makes a distinction between death spells and magical 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:<a href="http://www.dictionary.com" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com</a>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.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 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...)</blockquote>

Verification