Protections from the Blasphemy spell ?

[Trainz]

When 3.5 was announced, the FIRST thing I thought was "YES. They HAVE to fix Blasphemy at will. It's so obvious. I'm SURE they will take care of it."

In my book, that's the prime faux-pas of 3.5

Wouldn't you agree ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

When 3.5 was announced, the FIRST thing I thought was "YES. They HAVE to fix Blasphemy at will. It's so obvious. I'm SURE they will take care of it."

Blasphemy-at-will in 3E was absolutely fine until the FAQ tried to tinker with it.

Play it as written, there's no problem.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

From the 3.5 SRD, Blasphemy Spell Description: "Furthermore, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nonevil extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes. Creatures so banished cannot return for at least 24 hours. This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy."



Note that this is the only part of Blasphemy that takes effect on deafened opponents. It is a [sonic] spell, therefore, it has to be heard to have (most of) its effects. Silence is a good defense against it unless you are not on your home plane. The extraplanar non-evil creature banishing is also the only part of the spell's effect that allows a saving throw (Will at -4).

The bard's countersong ability, IMHO should be able to negate or allow a chance to negate the blasphemy spell, but, as written, the blasphemy spell (and its cohorts: holy word, unholy word, and word of chaos) are immune to the bardic ability for two reasons (instantaneous and no save).

From left field: How about the Range of 30 feet and Area is: 40 ft. spread centered on you? How is it possible to aim something 30 feet away but it still starts at you and goes out 40 feet? Yeah, I know its probably already been errata'ed. One of these days, I'm going to catch up with what has been errata'ed and what still remains to be fixed (I hope).

Add a normal Will save? That's the best idea I've heard. I'd like to add the ability of bardic countersong to affect it (at least its continuing effects) and I think that could work.

The 3.0 version still allows no save but ties the spell's power to actual hit dice affected (4HD or less die, 12 or over just dazed) rather than to HD vs. caster level. That helps, but not enough, I think. Maybe instead, it should be an opposed die roll, with a nice table for caster advantages/disadvantages and victim advantages/disadvantages? More like what was the norm (for me) in 2e.

Just my two coppers.

Ciao
ED

 

[Hypersmurf]

From left field: How about the Range of 30 feet and Area is: 40 ft. spread centered on you? How is it possible to aim something 30 feet away but it still starts at you and goes out 40 feet? Yeah, I know its probably already been errata'ed. One of these days, I'm going to catch up with what has been errata'ed and what still remains to be fixed (I hope).

It hasn't been, but if you check Holy Word, Dictum, and Word of Chaos, you'll see that Blasphemy has a typo.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Note that this is the only part of Blasphemy that takes effect on deafened opponents. It is a [sonic] spell, therefore, it has to be heard to have (most of) its effects.

I disagree with that.

Sonic effects that require the subject to be able to hear are generally noted as such.

In 3E, Blasphemy specifically said "creatures who hear the Blasphemy" for the non-dismissal effects, so you'd be right.

But in 3.5, it's just creatures who are in the area.

For example, the Greater Shout spell is a [Sonic] spell; it deals damage, stuns, and deafens. It has no provision for creatures who cannot hear being immune to any of those effects (though it cannot penetrate a Silence spell).

Sound Burst, on the other hand, damages and stuns, but specifically notes that deafened creatures are not subject to the stunning effect.

Blasphemy in 3.5 does not give any special dispensation to deaf characters - all effects apply.

With a Silence spell, however, they are protected from "sonic and language-based attacks". Exactly how much this covers has never been clear. But it could be argued that it prevents not only the daze, weakened, etc effects, but also the dismissal. The dismissal explicitly takes place even if you don't hear the Blasphemy, so deafness is certainly no protection... but Silence explicitly protects against sonic attacks. You are not simply "not hearing" the Blasphemy - you are, arguably, protected against it.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

"Furthermore, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nonevil extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes...This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy." This ends the paragraph.

Previous paragraphs in the spell description of the Blasphemy spell talked about other effects, no mention of whether hearing applies or not. But this paragraph (only) says: "This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy." You are taking that to mean the whole spell. I am taking it to mean this one effect of the spell (which in 3.0 was separated into a totally different effect. It still has a different paragraph from the rest of the spell's effects in 3.5).

Plainly to my reading and comprehension, in the 3.5 SRD, only the effect of the banishment applies to those who do not hear it. The other parts of the spell require hearing in order to work (thus the sonic part of the spell descriptors).

Sound Burst says: "Creatures that cannot hear are not stunned but are still damaged." Meaning that being deaf or being in a silence lessens the spell's special effects, but not its damage.

Greater Shout makes no mention of deaf creatures, but also does not mention silence protecting from its damage (you added that). It also does not state whether it breaks a silence or not (let's see: 8th level attack versus 2nd level defense, hmmm). Common sense would let the Greater Shout blast through the silence, dispelling it, and affect those inside. This should be as evident as the [light] and [darkness] spell descriptors and how they work against each other: "A light spell (one with the light descriptor) counters and dispels a darkness spell (one with the darkness descriptor) of an equal or lower level." Sonic has a descriptor, and although silence does not, it is its opposite and should be treated accordingly.

Ciao
Dave

P.S. Errata doesn't cover typos? I seem to remember Sword and Fist having a lot of typos errata'ed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Previous paragraphs in the spell description of the Blasphemy spell talked about other effects, no mention of whether hearing applies or not. But this paragraph (only) says: "This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy." You are taking that to mean the whole spell.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it wasn't actually necessary.

In 3E, there were two sections.

"Creatures who hear the Blasphemy suffer the following ill effects" and "Dismissal... this effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the Blasphemy."

The line was necessary to distinguish the fact that not-hearing protected you from the one, but not from the other.

In 3.5, they've removed the "creatures that hear" condition from the first set of effects. But they didn't bother to change the wording of the latter half of the spell. It's still true, but it's actually unnecessary now.

The dazed, weakened etc effects apply to a deaf creature because it doesn't say they don't, like it did in 3E. The Dismissal effect applies because it explicitly say so... but if they left that sentence out, it would still apply.

If the spell had been completely written from scratch for 3.5, the line would likely not have been in there. It's an artefact of the revision.

Greater Shout makes no mention of deaf creatures, but also does not mention silence protecting from its damage (you added that).

Greater Shout is "As the Shout spell, except". Read Shout.

It also does not state whether it breaks a silence or not (let's see: 8th level attack versus 2nd level defense, hmmm).

You mean like Dominate Monster (9th level attack) vs Protection from Evil (1st level defence)?

Common sense would let the Greater Shout blast through the silence, dispelling it, and affect those inside.

I'd think common sense would require reading where the spell specifically cannot penetrate Silence first

P.S. Errata doesn't cover typos? I seem to remember Sword and Fist having a lot of typos errata'ed.

The 3.5 PHB errata are a pitiful effort that don't even scratch the surface

For most of it, they've basically said "You guys figure it out."

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

IMO The deafness condition description should also mention sonic effects. It mentions verbal components of spells but fails to set how sonic spells and abilities affect deafened creatures. This is an oversight and should be added to the next errata.

Ciao
ED

 

[Hypersmurf]

IMO The deafness condition description should also mention sonic effects. It mentions verbal components of spells but fails to set how sonic spells and abilities affect deafened creatures. This is an oversight and should be added to the next errata.

Hmm? Sonic spells and abilities affect deafened creatures exactly as they affect hearing creatures, unless the description of the effect states otherwise.

If you don't like it, house-rule it... but that doesn't make it an oversight.

A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.

But Blasphemy isn't language-dependent.

There's a difference between deafness (can't hear sonic spell) and Silence (protects against sonic attacks).

-Hyp.

 

[Nightfall]

Give the PC an exalted feat to protect against evil spells. That should do it.