[evil] spells and eyebite

[mercucio]

Am I missing something here?

*SNIP*
...the party found a scroll of eyebite. It was a treasure listed in a module I'm running.

"Cool", the player said, "a 6th level necromantic spell!" (he's a necromancer)

Then we read it. It totally sucks.

Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 round per three levels; see text
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
Each round, you may target a single living creature, striking it with waves of evil power. Depending on the target’s HD, this attack has as many as three effects.
HD Effect
10 or more Sickened
5–9 Panicked, sickened
4 or less Comatose, panicked, sickened
The effects are cumulative and concurrent.

Sickened: Sudden pain and fever sweeps over the subject’s body. A sickened creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A creature affected by this spell remains sickened for 10 minutes per caster level. The effects cannot be negated by a remove disease or heal spell, but a remove curse is effective.
Panicked: The subject becomes panicked for 1d4 rounds. Even after the panic ends, the creature remains shaken for 10 minutes per caster level, and it automatically becomes panicked again if it comes within sight of you during that time. This is a fear effect.

Comatose: The subject falls into a catatonic coma for 10 minutes per caster level. During this time, it cannot be awakened by any means short of dispelling the effect. This is not a sleep effect, and thus elves are not immune to it.

The spell lasts for 1 round per three caster levels. You must spend a move action each round after the first to target a foe.
*snip*

While I agree wholeheartedly with Saeviomagy on simply replacing the 3.5 version with the 3.0 version of eyebite, if you don't feel like making such a drastic change, change the effects to

HD                            EFFECT
Equal to caster level         sickened
Up to caster level	–1    panicked, sickened
Up to caster level	–8    comatose, panicked, sickened

This makes it scale with level, ala holy/unholy word and makes it more effective at higher levels. Making it a free action each round is a bad idea either if you go this route.

 

[Sejs]

Disease is a naturally occuring thing. People get sick without the aid of magic all the time - the black plague killed a significant percentage of the population of europe. It was absolutly terrible, but it occured without the aid of any external agency. Things that are naturally occurant shouldn't have the [evil] tag. Poison, earthquake, flood, disease, fire - all natural, none evil.



I mean how is it more evil to give some guy a disease than it is to burn him to death in a swirling mass of fiery doom?

 

[welby]

I'd rather have death by fiery doom than a slow, painful, and debilitating disease. But you are certainly correct about deathwatch. Who's the genius who decided that should be evil.

 

[Sejs]

Heh, I'd rather have neither, personally.

Or maybe an illusion of a cute girl, or a litter of puppies, if the option was available.

^_^

 

[Fieari]

Being natural doesn't preclude something from being evil. Disease can be evil even if it's not caused by human action. In fact, I'd say that disease IS evil. Fighting disease is certainly good, and a worthy occupation for righteous priests.

 

[rrealm]

does anyone see a reason that this spell shouldn't be unnerfed? If you would use the 3.0 version, would you change anything?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I mean how is it more evil to give some guy a disease than it is to burn him to death in a swirling mass of fiery doom?

I guess we just have different ideas of evil. To me, it's far more evil to give someone the Black Plague, than to incinerate them in an instant.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Disease is a naturally occuring thing. People get sick without the aid of magic all the time - the black plague killed a significant percentage of the population of europe. It was absolutly terrible, but it occured without the aid of any external agency. Things that are naturally occurant shouldn't have the [evil] tag. Poison, earthquake, flood, disease, fire - all natural, none evil.



I mean how is it more evil to give some guy a disease than it is to burn him to death in a swirling mass of fiery doom?

Your point has merit, but it is only the modern scientific mindset that would see poison and disease as not evil. They are corruption manifest in most all religious traditions in the RL. Why do you think some religious sects believe their faith will make them immune to disease and allow them to handle poisonous snakes safely?

Earthquakes, flood, and fiery death might justifiably be lablled evil, depending on the pantheon of the campaign. They are not in vanilla D&D.

 

[Sejs]

I guess we just have different ideas of evil. To me, it's far more evil to give someone the Black Plague, than to incinerate them in an instant.

*nod* Agree to disagree, then. Sounds good to me.

Being natural doesn't preclude something from being evil. Disease can be evil even if it's not caused by human action. In fact, I'd say that disease IS evil. Fighting disease is certainly good, and a worthy occupation for righteous priests.

I think the primary distinction here is the seperation from something that is a Bad Thing versus something that is [Evil]. A pack of starving wolves that have taken to attacking peasants due to lack of otherwise available food is a Bad Thing; they're neutral creatures caught under unfortunate circumstances, and a harmful force that should be brought into check. But they're not the distilled essence of malice and wrong that say a Barghest is. Likewise, an illness, particularly the serious ones that actually have stats in the D&D game, are Bad Things. And helping people to fight off said illness would be the right thing to do, like you said - I completely agree with you on the priest point. But I personally don't feel that inflicting someone with a sickness (which could, say, spread to other victims, but won't necessarily) is any more evil then killing that same person with a fireball (which could, say, light off a brush/forest fire that would sweep the region, killing many, but won't necessarily). On the other hand, things like Create Undead and Death Knell are spells that are worthy of an [Evil] tag - they do something that is inherrantly, very wrong and malign.

Your point has merit, but it is only the modern scientific mindset that would see poison and disease as not evil. They are corruption manifest in most all religious traditions in the RL. Why do you think some religious sects believe their faith will make them immune to disease and allow them to handle poisonous snakes safely?

Earthquakes, flood, and fiery death might justifiably be lablled evil, depending on the pantheon of the campaign. They are not in vanilla D&D.

Very true, and it leads us in part to the idea of subjective right and wrong, good and evil, from a religeous standpoint. Say, for example, that an orthodox faith would see poison and disease and such as evil. Or [Evil] if you prefer. But on the other hand, a druidic type faith could just as easily see poison as just another natural feature like sharp claws or thumbs, and could see disease as something that's supposed to be there. That serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things - its there to help sweep away the frail and usher away those whose time to pass on has come. To the druid, neither are evil - they're neutral; just another spoke in the great wheel of How Things Are Supposed To Work.

 

[der_kluge]

Whoa. I forget to read my thread for a couple of days, and all hell breaks loose.

Well, I think from this discussion I've learned two things - eyebite in 3.5 does, indeed, suck.

Secondly, [evil] spells seem really, really subjective, and eyebite as written certainly doesn't seem to fit the bill.

I never could understand why deathwatch became [evil] in 3.5 either. My cleric used to cast that all the time in 3.0. Truthfully, I think the only reason it is evil is because it's too powerful. My cleric could use it to find invisible opponents, undead, and constructs within a decent sized little area. That's pretty powerful for a 2nd level spell.

The eyebite version Mercucio proposes is not bad. It's certainly better. My player is multi-classed, unfortunately, so it won't help him too much, since caster HD -8 would actually make it worse off for him than the spell as written. I will play with it.