# Does a Death Ward Protect against Phantasmal Killer?



## Celtavian (Dec 4, 2002)

The Phantasmal Killer spell has the Illusion (Phantasm)[Fear, Mind-Affecting] Descriptor. 

Does Death Ward only protect against Necromancy (Death) Spells or all magical death effects?


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

I do belive that would fall under 'magical death effects'.


----------



## 0-hr (Dec 4, 2002)

Unless it says [Death], it ain't no death spell.


----------



## Kraedin (Dec 4, 2002)

If it doesn't have the Death descriptor, it isn't a death spell.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

The spells says death spells * AND * magical death effects.


Logical operators are FAIRLY simple.


----------



## Kraedin (Dec 4, 2002)

"Magical death effects" refers to non-spell magical effects with the Death descriptor.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

I fail to see how magical spells are not magical.

Perhaps you can explain this concept to me, instead of making blatent declarations.  If something says it is magical, in its own description of itself, like magical spells, how cannot it not be magical?  After all, hasn't it described it this way.

Is there a place in the book where it says magical spells aren't really magical?  Instead they are non-magical magical spells, that are effected by anti-magic shells, even though they are not magical?

I don't think so.


further the *ALL* is pretty darn inclusive.  If I remember right All is the operator that indicates everything.   Since is says all death spells and magical death effects,  and spells are magical, otherwise they wouldn't be called magic...

Thus, magic death spells fall within magic death effects.


----------



## Kraedin (Dec 4, 2002)

Death ward protects against two things:
Death spells (i.e., spells with the Death descriptor)
Magical death effects (i.e., magical effects with the Death descriptor)
_Phantasmal killer_ is not a death spell (it does not have the Death descriptor), and it is not a magical death effect (it does not have the Death descriptor.)  Because of this, _death ward_ does not protect you from _phantasmal killer_.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> Death ward protects against two things:
> 
> * Death spells (i.e., spells with the Death descriptor)
> * Magical death effects (i.e., magical effects with the Death descriptor)




Please point to the line of the spell that states only those effects with the [death] descriptor.

As it is that Symbol of Death  (in its name) that blatently kills in all ways just like every other death spell, is also not a death spell.

Now considering that, and that no supernatural effects ever have tags....

not the aboleths Enslave, which can obviously effect those immune to mind effecting powers, as it doesn't state it is one

not the Allip's babble, as though it says 'mind affecting' it isn't in tags...

The Behir's breath weapon is not really lighting because it does not have the [electricity] tag....

or the Bodak's death gaze.... Which appraently, according to you, effects undead and constructs!
....

Since your defintion does not hold up to example, it must be flawed.

If your definition is flawed one must return to the description

As such that is what one does, where you could say 'death' spell mean those labled with only the tags, legitimately as SPELLS are given such tags,  magical effects most defintely does NOT have this limitation.  The books completely fail to use these tags at all.

The use of 'magical-effects' leads one to immediatly conclude that this indeed must have been added for a purpose.   Effects like the Bodak's death gaze pretty much confirm it.   In such one declares that 'magical-effects' must be a catagory of at least one entity.   Given this and the fact that no supernatural effects, or effects other than spells are labled with the tags, one must presume that your definition is indeed wrong.


That is pure logic.


From a common sense perspective if it is a spell that 'kills' it is a death spell.  Afterall that is the english definition of a death spell.  Further if it is a effect that kills, of magical nature than it is a magical death effect.


Phantasmal killer kills with 'magical fear'  as such it is a magical death effect.   So would be a spell that kills by stopping the heart, a spell that kills by causing the body to explode, or whatever other method an individual dreams of.

If it kills  (save or die)  it is a magical death effect. 

It is pretty simple.


If that is not enough, consider this.  The fortude save is used only for the  following:  

#1 : Save against poision (which now always does ability damage)

#2 : Save against disease  (which also does abiilty damage)

#3 :  Save against bodily change,  which is nicely marked by 'polymorph' or other traditional mythical translations.

#4 : Save against death.   

Phantasmal Killer requires #4. If one is making a save against death, one presumes one is effected by a death effect.   And Phantasmal Killer is magical.

Thus it is a magical death effect.


----------



## Kraedin (Dec 4, 2002)

> As it is that Symbol of Death (in its name) that blatently kills in all ways just like every other death spell, is also not a death spell.



The designers saw fit to fill the core rulebooks with errors.







> Now considering that, and that no supernatural effects ever have tags....



Supernatural abilities with descriptors:
Aboleth's Enslave ability: mind-affecting (as _dominate person_)
Achaierai's Black Cloud: mind-affecting (as _insanity_)
Allip's Babble: sonic, mind-affecting, compulsion
Beholder's eye rays: charm, mind-affecting, compusion, fear, death (as _charm person, charm monster, sleep, fear, finger of death_)
Blink Dog's Dimension Door: teleportation (as _dimension door_)
Celestial's Magic Circle Against Evil: good (as _magic circle against evil_)
Celestial's Protective Aura: good (as _magic circle against evil_)
Celestial's Teleport: teleport (as _teleport without error_)
Darkmantle's Darkness: darkness (as _darkness_)
Bebilith's Protective Aura: good, evil, law, chaos (as _magic circle against good/evil/law/chaos_)
Osyluth's Fear Aura: fear, mind-affecting (as _fear_)
Erinyes' Charm Person: charm, mind-affecting (as _charm person_)
Hamatula's Fear: fear, mind-affecting (as _fear_)
Cornugon's Fear: fear, mind-affecting (as _fear_)
Gelugon's Fear Aura: fear, mind-affecting (as _fear_)
Pit Fiend's Fear Aura: fear, mind-affecting (as _fear_)
Doppelganger's Detect Thoughts: mind-affecting (as _detect thoughts_)
and so on and so forth.



> As such that is what one does, where you could say 'death' spell mean those labled with only the tags, legitimately as SPELLS are given such tags, magical effects most defintely does NOT have this limitation. The books completely fail to use these tags at all.



Obviously untrue.  (See above.)







> From a common sense perspective if it is a spell that 'kills' it is a death spell. Afterall that is the english definition of a death spell. Further if it is a effect that kills, of magical nature than it is a magical death effect.



Obviously a flawed definition.  Many spells kill.  _Fireball_ can result in the death of the target, but that does not mean that it is a "magical death effect".







> If that is not enough, consider this. The fortude save is used only for the following:
> 
> #1 : Save against poision (which now always does ability damage)
> 
> ...



Also not true.  It is used against energy drain and paralysis, amoung other things.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> Supernatural abilities with descriptors:




You are speaking of refrences, the abilities themselves have no descripters.   



> sonic, mind-affecting, compulsion




Thus you agree that effects described in text, confer a spell a nature without a descriptor tag.



> Obviously untrue. (See above.)




You fail to understand the nature of an argument.  You first stated:



> If it doesn't have the Death descriptor, it isn't a death spell.





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:



> * Magical death effects (i.e., magical effects with the Death descriptor)





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 



> The designers saw fit to fill the core rulebooks with errors.




I agree, thus Phantamal Killer is a death spell.




> Supernatural abilities with descriptors:




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.  



> Obviously a flawed definition. Many spells kill. Fireball can result in the death of the target, but that does not mean that it is a "magical death effect".




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'




> Also not true. It is used against energy drain and paralysis, amoung other things.




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.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 4, 2002)

Phantasmal killer is a fear effect, not a death effect.  Yes, it kills via magical fear.  That's still a *fear* effect, not a *death* effect, just as a lightning bolt kills by electricity and is an electrical effect, not a death effect.

If a monster has a special ability that says, "this works just like x" then the ability has the descriptors of x.  

Death ward doesn't block fear effects, disintigration, poison that deals lethal con damage, petrification, or whatever.  Descriptors, according to pg. 152  of the PH, "have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on..."

It's pretty clear that, at least in the PH, the designers tried hard to make sure all the descriptors got in there.

What _does_ get the Death descriptor?  Things like finger of death, the death domain's death touch power, slay living, etc.  Things that directly attack the life force.  Not things that are really scary.

Please, folks, let's all be nice- no need for anyone to get testy here.


----------



## mkletch (Dec 4, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *Logical operators are FAIRLY simple. *




Wow this is a friendly little thread.  [Checks PHB...]  No "death" in brackets next to the school for Phantasmal Killer.  So it's not a death spell, nor would a supernatural or spell-like ability duplicating this spell be a magical death effect.

To paraphrase: "Reading the rules is FAIRLY simple (at least in this case  )".

-Fletch!


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 4, 2002)

Death ward states very specifically that it protects against "Death Effects and magical death attacks."

It does not state spells specifically with the death descriptor. That is why I am unsure.


One can surely surmise that a Bodak's gaze, Beholder's Eye Ray, and other such attacks are death effects. 

The real question is whether only spells with the Necromancy (Death) Descriptor are magical death effects. Phantasmal killer consists of two parts: Will save to disbelieve and Fort save or die.

The only spells I know of that kill with a Fort save are death spells.  On the other hand even (i)Power Word, Kill(/i) lists the descriptor death though it is a Conjuration (Creation) Spell.

No one knows of any sage ruling on the matter?


----------



## Darklone (Dec 4, 2002)

Hmm, do you think a paladin (immune to fear) is immune to Phantasmal killer?

Guys, use common sense.


----------



## hong (Dec 4, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *Hmm, do you think a paladin (immune to fear) is immune to Phantasmal killer?*




Yep.

Is this a trick question?


----------



## hong (Dec 4, 2002)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> *The only spells I know of that kill with a Fort save are death spells.  *




Disintegrate is not a death spell. This is perhaps the canonical counterexample to the assertion that all instakill effects are death effects.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re*

Hmmmm...ok. 

Phantasmal Kills causes death through fear, so a Paladin is immune.

But death ward only protects against death effects that directly attack the life force of the target as indicated by the descriptor [death]. If it kills by some other means that does not attack the life force like fear or disintegrate, then death ward has no effect.

Any thing that boosts fear saves adds to ones save against Phantasmal killer. 

This sounds like a reasonable way to arbitrate the spell.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 4, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *Hmm, do you think a paladin (immune to fear) is immune to Phantasmal killer?*



Absolutely. The spell has the [Fear] descriptor, therefore paladins are immune to it.


----------



## 0-hr (Dec 4, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *The spells says death spells  AND  magical death effects.
> 
> 
> Logical operators are FAIRLY simple. *



The "magical death effect" referes to non-spell death effects. In all cases, these are explicitly stated. Here are some examples:


> This +1 arrow is keyed to a particular type of creature. If it
> strikes such a creature, the target must make a Fortitude save
> (DC 20) or die (or, in the case of unliving targets, be
> destroyed) instantly. Note that even creatures normally exempt
> ...




And honestly, before you convince your DM that every lethal spell is a "magical death effect" keep this in mind:



> Raise Dead
> A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or
> killed by a *death effect* can't be raised by this spell.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> Wow this is a friendly little thread. [Checks PHB...] No "death" in brackets next to the school for Phantasmal Killer.




Logical Fallicies are a pet peave.   Addressing the first part of the sentance, when I brought up the second is evading the question, a logical fallicy.

He should have stated his second post in the first place.



> If a monster has a special ability that says, "this works just like x" then the ability has the descriptors of x.




Correct,  Something I agree with,  I brought up the earlier to check the premises mister  "I make a statment it is true because I said so"  will accept.

He accepts apparently that if it describes itself as death, then it is death.  Thus Bodak's gaze is a death effect.

Thus I can argue if its description describes a death effect, it is a death effect.  This is very important for several issues, including said items like 'Vorpal, Nine Lives Stealer'

Which would also mean symbol is a death effect.  Which is also quite obvious.



> Death ward doesn't block fear effects, disintigration, poison that deals lethal con damage, petrification, or whatever.




Where is your line that states it does not block disintigration?   Heck where is your line that says it only blocks effects that snuff out your life force.

Afterall snuffing out your life force isn't a death effect, it is snuffing out your lifeforce effect.

Death is merely a side effect.

However, I do belive everyone in here considers that a death effect.

Phantamal killer is simply using an illusion to convince someone that their life has been snuffed out.   If you are immune to your life being snuffed out then you would obviously automatically disbelieve the illusion.   Just like if you have an illusion of a fireball, and you are immune to fire, you obviously would not bother with a save, afterall you would have no reason to believe there would be harm.



> "Reading the rules is FAIRLY simple (at least in this case  )".




There is no rule stating the need for a death descriptor.

The second sentance indicates that the first sentance would have applied to those things given exception, otherwise there is no need for them to give an exception.

Conclusion there is no stated need for a death descriptor. Otherwise there would have been no need to state the exceptions that would never have applied.

As such a death effect can be construed to be a death effect that does not seem to follow the series of events labled.  Those labled are 'non-direct' death effects.  Effects that cause death as a secondary ruling from the spells effect after the primary effects are inacted.

Phantasmal killer does not state you go to deadly panic state of fear.  It states you die from fear.   It has no intermediate step.

It acts in all ways like a death effect (after you pass the illusion part that is).  There for   it is a death effect.

As the spell is describing death effect.



> Disintegrate is not a death spell. This is perhaps the canonical counterexample to the assertion that all instakill effects are death effects.




You are not an athority on the subject.  If you state "The sage states Disintegrate is not a death effect,"  then you are set.

I suggest you cease making statments without backing them up.   In this case I would have suggested that nowhere in Disintegrate does it say 'die'  is says transmutes to dust.

What is more Fort saves are accepted for transumation saves.  As such we can declare it is not death merely a transmutation to dust.

Of course then, if it is merely a transmutation I will reply by healing it with a Polymorph Other.  After all the player never died, he just turned to dust.


However you have not done so.   I happen to disagree with this premise,  Disitegrate is in every sense a death effect, except for the tags.

Tags are not clearly stated as needed, no one has given evidence that the tags are needed.   I have given 'accepted' as not rejected evidence that the tags are not needed.

As such one must conclude tags are not needed.

Thus if tags are not needed then disintegrate is a death effect, and is negated by death ward.

If you have a counter example based on the  sage that is a good place for you to start YOUR counter argument.

I do not accept baseless statements.

If that is all you have I suggest you reconsider you blind supportless position.  If you have more you should offer it instead of just statments.   The people here are not so idiotic to belive statements with no given backing.



> Phantasmal Kills causes death through fear, so a Paladin is immune.




I would agree, just because I consider Phantasmal Killer a death effect does not mean it ceases to be a mindeffecting fear effect as well.   Nor does it cease to be an illusion.

Assuming so would be a false presumption.

Also the protection against fear spells would give bonuses against this save. Though one  could presume the will save is the save against fear, and thus only give the bonus to that.

It is up to interpetation.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> And honestly, before you convince your DM that every lethal spell is a "magical death effect" keep this in mind:
> 
> ....




Ah, finally a decent point!  However, I am a GM.   So why would I care what happens to those poor little characters?  


In any case I suggest you look at why I state that Deathward implies more than just the 'this is a death effect' powers.  

Does this have a list of exceptions on damage dealing powers?  Nope.

The english language is amazingly versitle.  The same sentance can have a differing meaning dependent on the context it is placed on.  I am quite sure that you however, are aware of this.

As such I can if I wish conclude that they mean the 'big death spells' when they say that.  Now if it also had a list of exceptions this would be a PERFECT counter example.   As it is it ain't quite solid. 

Besides, perhaps those are not healable from raise dead  

An interesting question.

It is nice to see your position actually throwing out amunition though! 



> The "magical death effect" referes to non-spell death effects.




I do believe that I have already tossed this out.   Magical is a discriptor that most obviously applies to supernatural effects, spell-like abilities, and spells.  That is why it is called magic.

You don't seriously think I would change my mind because you baselessly stated it as well?


----------



## IceBear (Dec 4, 2002)

So getting hit for 50 points of damage by a fireball when you only have 10 hp is a death effect?  The spell's effect was that it killed me, so it must be a death effect.

Yeah, I know, it's not - it just caused damage.  I don't really have an issue with anything causing instant death to be blocked by this spell, but I don't think Phantasmal Killer is one of them.  It wasn't magic that killed you, it was your own fear.

IceBear


----------



## Berk (Dec 4, 2002)

I think the main cause of confusion for deathward is the whole effect part. People too often get it confused with affect. I can go into tons of detail here but just look up the definitions for each and it will probably shed some light on the situation. It's what cleared the whole deathward thing up for me. Anyways, bottom line, disint is a death affect, not a death effect. Using disint as an argument that it is a death effect isn't viable since it isn't a death effect, but a death affect. Just looking up the definitions of those 2 words will clear a lot up. It did for me anyway.


----------



## jasper (Dec 4, 2002)

Since fear and death are two different descriptors I would say 
Death Ward does not block the P. Killer.

Ward ...The subject is immune to all death spells and magical death effects. The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrifaction, or other effects even if they might be lethal....
So it not a death spell, and the magical death effects would be like Miss Medusa show off and giving Peeping Tom Peter Paladin an eye full.

Also I would Peter was not affected by P. Killer.

has any one check with Sage or FAQ????


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> I think the main cause of confusion for deathward is the whole effect part.




The main problem with death ward is it's poor description.  If the spell even had a paragraph of filler text it would be easy through in or out spell effects as they apply.

as for definitions:


www.dictionary.com 

effect
   1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.


a death effect is thus, death brought about by an agent or cause.  This is exactly how they used it, and is why they needed to exclude damageing effects, and presumably those like damaging effects.

Pretty clear.  Unless they are using their own internal definition, which is the argument others are presenting (though not in argument form, merely through statements).   However the exclusion sentance following implies the standard definition.


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

I love it when pseudo-intellectuals try to use "logic" to rewrite the core rules.


----------



## Berk (Dec 4, 2002)

> I love it when pseudo-intellectuals try to use "logic" to rewrite the core rules.




Who is using logic? I actually don't see any being used.


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Who is using logic? I actually don't see any being used. *




I said he was using "logic" not logic.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Dec 4, 2002)

jasper said:
			
		

> *... has any one check with Sage or FAQ???? *




Why not the SRD



> DEATH ATTACKS
> 
> In most cases, death attacks allow the victim to make a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails the character dies instantly.




This strongly implies that anything that flatly says 'save or die' is a death effect, otherwise an assasins death attack is not actually a death effect since it does not say that it is.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> I love it when pseudo-intellectuals try to use "logic" to rewrite the core rules.




Most facinating, however this one would say that he is using logic to defend what he percieves as the core rules.

From my perspecitve you are trying to yell me inorder to misinterpurt the rules...



The success on my side is the utter lack of logic on the opposite side.   It really shouldn't be that hard to argue against me if your are right,  infact, you should be able to easily destroy my argument if you are right.


However, instead of doing so all I get is consistent repeats of the same statement, with no backing. Surely getting backing isn't that difficult?  


Anyone who has studied logic would know that is not an arugment, the few arguments I see have one premise and one conclusion leading.   Where one would not accept the premise unless they accepted conclusion.


It isn't my fault that the other side is arguing poorly,  heck I almost feel pity and have tossed them some arguments for them,  or even told them where to start.  Surely if these statements they make are right that they can show evidence, Heck I would accept a  'FAQ say',  'Errata Says'   etc...  as a good start.   They are at least legimate authorites on the subject.


If they have evidence they should decimate me at this point.  The lack of doing so indicates that nobody has an oppinion based on anything but gut instinct.   Not bad for a GM, but gut doesn't stand well in an argument.


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *  Whining snipped
> 
> *




Here's a logical operator for you: 

Until you can learn to discuss things like an adult rather than talk down to everyone like children, your points are FAIRLY likely to be ignored.     

Myself, I don't really care if you have a good case or not at this point.   From what I have read so far, you are being an ass, and I'm not going to bother dignifiying you with a real debate until you drop the attitude. 

Let me know when you want a real discussion.


----------



## daemonslye (Dec 4, 2002)

Hmmm.

Disintegrate does not have a death descriptor either, but
RttToEE p.180 allows The First to use his "pay fealty to death"
PrC feat (adds "+1 to DC of spells causing death effects" p.163)
with it.

That said, I believe it is a mistake (spell focus necro is added 
as well, IIRC).

~D


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

Whining is an intersting choice of words.   I suppose you think I am complaining?  I am quite amused I can assure you that.



> Here's a logical operator for you:




That is not a logical operator.  I am sure you know that.



> Until you can learn to discuss things like an adult rather than talk down to everyone like children, your points are FAIRLY likely to be ignored.
> 
> Myself, I don't really care if you have a good case or not at this point. From what I have read so far, you are being an ass, and I'm not going to bother dignifiying you with a real debate until you drop the attitude.
> 
> Let me know when you want a real discussion.




I talk down to people who fail to approach the argument as an argument, and will continue to do so.   Why? 

Very simple.   First it makes them mad and annoyed.   If they are mad and annoyed they are more likely to attack my argument.   If they cannot, well that is just to bad.

When they attack my argument, I am forced to think my argument through, in doing so it becomes stronger as weaknesses are revealed.   If the weakness is fatal my argument dies.  In either case I am enlightened by the attack upon my argument.

In such I benifit from their anger.  Once they start attacking my argument I immediatly praise because I am happy I am recieveing what I desire.  It is also to encourage their heads to be cooler when making their attacks.  Thus they can be more effective in arguing and the resultant answer, if one is determinable,  can be retrieved faster.

Secondly, because real arguments should be civil between individuals.

Thirdly, because often attacks that are falicious are intentional distortions by the otherside.  Rarely do you see falicies alone unless they are intended.   If there is lack of respect on the opposing side there is no point showing the same to the other side.  afterall they obviously have no intention of attempting to find the correct answer.  They just whish to spout their oppinion.



> Myself, I don't really care if you have a good case or not at this point.




That is because you are not an intellectual.  To me a good case is all that is important.   You however wage kindness higher.  Ironically you only contend this on the side approaching your oppinion.  However this is your choice and it is difficult to rise above such bias.

And no,  I am by no means immune to such things,  such a presumption would be a false analysis of my statments.



> From what I have read so far, you are being an ass, and I'm not going to bother dignifiying you with a real debate until you drop the attitude.




*Chuckle*,   I don't suppose then you will refrain from the same direct insults yourself?   Or are you merely a hypocrit?

Heck, at least I am offering a discussion for those that actually care on the matter.  You don't offer anything but an insult.   If you do not wish to participate in such personal attacks, don't do so.  Simply address the argument and give a good example by rising above your opponent.

It actually is a very good style.



> Let me know when you want a real discussion.




I am waiting for it.  The question is can you provide it?   If so do so and I will immediately focus on what I consider the more important matter.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Dec 4, 2002)

Btw Xylix, IIRC, Caliban actually agrees with you but takes offense at the way you presented your argument for whatever reason.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> Btw Xylix, IIRC, Caliban actually agrees with you but takes offense at the way you presented your argument for whatever reason.




LOL

Darn!!!



> Hmmm.
> 
> Disintegrate does not have a death descriptor either, but
> RttToEE p.180 allows The First to use his "pay fealty to death"
> ...




Interesting point, however if focus necro is also added in it may well be a mistake.


----------



## jasper (Dec 4, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why not the SRD
> This strongly implies that anything that flatly says 'save or die' is a death effect, otherwise an assasins death attack is not actually a death effect since it does not say that it is. *




ok thanks aggemam. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## 0-hr (Dec 4, 2002)

```
for i = 0 to threadcount
  for j = 0 to postcount
    if (username == "Xylix") then
      if (INT < 5) then
        trollcount = trollcount + 1
      else
        trollcount = troullcount - 1
      end if
    next j
next i

if (trollcount > 0) then
  Set ignore("Xylix") = TRUE
end if
```


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> * More hot air snipped. *




All you have done is prove my point.   You are not an intellectual, you are a pseudo-intellectual.   You simply aren't worth my time. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Dec 4, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *All you have done is prove my point.   You are not an intellectual, you are a pseudo-intellectual.   You simply aren't worth my time. *




What is eating you today, *Caliban* ?


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What is eating you today, Caliban ? *




Nothing really.   I simply have a limited amount of time which I can devote to these boards, and I'm not going to waste it on tripe like that.     I'm not interested in participating in his condescending style of pseudo-logic. 

Since he has stated that he won't act like a reasonable adult, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on him.   He's simply not worth it.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

> for i = 0 to threadcount
> for j = 0 to postcount
> if (username == "Xylix") then
> if (INT < 5) then
> ...




Not quite more like ....






```
for (int i = 0; i < Postcount; i++)
{
  user.getUser (i);
 if (strcmp ( user.name, "Xylix") == 0)
    {
     if  (Postcount > user.lastpost)
        {
          user.addPost();
                  for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
                     user.addtoPost(i,hotair.random());
        }
    }
}
```


That has been the approach of non-listeners for many a year 





> Nothing really. I simply have a limited amount of time which I can devote to these boards, and I'm not going to waste it on tripe like that. I'm not interested in participating in his condescending style of pseudo-logic.




Perhaps you should keep with your plans other than posting here 

If you wish I would like to see you attempt to argue that my logic is pseudo logic.   Sounds fun!!!

I find people that say in a post that they are not participlating any more amusing.  Especially when they never did participate  

That is just me.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 4, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *
> This strongly implies that anything that flatly says 'save or die' is a death effect[...]*



That does not follow. If the SRD says, "Most death effects allow Fort saves," that does not mean that anything with a Fort save is a death effect.

If I say that "most cars are metal," that does not imply that all metal objects are cars.



> *[...] otherwise an assasins death attack is not actually a death effect since it does not say that it is. *



If the death attack is not labelled as a Death Effect (note the distinction), what makes you think it is one? IIRC it's an Extraordinary ability, and _Death Ward_ does not protect against it, just as it won't protect an ordinary CDG.

[typo]


----------



## AGGEMAM (Dec 4, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *That does not follow. If the SRD says, "Most death effects allow Fort saves," that does not mean that anything with a Fort save is a death effect.
> 
> If I say that "most cars are metal," that does not imply that all metal objects are cars.*




It say 'most' because not at all death effects or spells actually allow a save.

Btw, the DMG, page 74, says that DW does protect against death attacks, magical or otherwise.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

good good an attack on a premise!!  We are on a roll today!   




> That does not follow. If the SRD says, "Most death effects allow Fort saves," that does not mean that anything with a Fort save is a death effect.
> 
> If I say that "most cars are metal," that does not imply that all metal objects are cars.




It does exactly what he said.  It strongly implies that those requiring a save or die are death effects.

You are misreading his statment.  He never claimed that all fort saves are death effects.  He just used it as evidence that Fort save or die are probably death effects. 

You are misreading his statement.


It merely means that in all probability Phantasmal killer is a death effect, unless you can give a reason it isnt?




> If the attack is not labelled as a Death Effect (note the distinction), what makes you think it is one?




What makes him think it is one?  My guess is :

#1 :  It is save or die
#2 :  You fail your save you die, no fancy stuff.
#3 :  It seems pretty obvious it would not effect a construct.
#4 : It meets the english definition of death effect.

and proably more,  I am sure he can enlighten you on his exactreasoning.  But I think those are good starting guesses.



> IIRC it's an Extraordinary ability, and Death Ward does not protect against it, just as it won't protect an ordinary CDG.




Not important, it is merely example evidence.  Whether or not it is supernatural has no impact on its power.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 4, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *
> It say 'most' because not at all death effects or spells actually allow a save.*



The word "most" is irrelevant.

You quoted a line that says death effects tend to have Fort saves. This is a one-way implication. It says absolutely nothing to indicate that a Fort save implies a death effect.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Dec 4, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> The word "most" is irrelevant.
> 
> You quoted a line that says death effects tend to have Fort saves. This is a one-way implication. It says absolutely nothing to indicate that a Fort save implies a death effect. *




Check the DMG entry.


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> *The Phantasmal Killer spell has the Illusion (Phantasm)[Fear, Mind-Affecting] Descriptor.
> 
> Does Death Ward only protect against Necromancy (Death) Spells or all magical death effects? *





In any case, to answer your question Celtavian: The _death ward_ spell will not protect against the _phantasmal killer_ spell.

_Phantasmal Killer_ is a not a death effect, it's a lethal fear effect.   

The _death ward_ spell, courtesy of the SRD:



> Death Ward
> 
> Necromancy
> Level: Clr 4, Death 4, Drd 5, Pal 4
> ...




Note that the spell description makes a distinction between death spells and magical death effects.    This indicates that there spells that are death effects, and things that are not spells that are death effects. 

_Phantasmal Killer_ is a spell, but doesn't have the [Death] descriptor.   Therefore it's not a "death spell."  

Is it a "magical death effect"?   No, it's not, and here's why: 

If you can have a spell that is not a "death spell" but still count as a "magical death effect" why even make the distinction?   _Death Ward_ would just say it "protects against all magical death effects."   Since it does make that distinction between the two, then "magical death effects" would seem to strongly imply magical death effects *other* than spells. 


Furthermore, as the _Death Ward_ spell itself makes clear, not every magical effect that causes death is in fact a "magical death effect".   It states: "The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or *other effects* even if they might be lethal."

This makes it clear that there are other save or die effects that are not classified as "death effects".  

_Phantasmal Killer_ is very clearly a fear effect, and a lethal one at that.   It is not clearly a "death effect".   If it was a death effect, it should be in the spell descriptor or in the spell description.   The spell description indicates that they die of fear, which reinforces the [Fear] descriptor.  Nothing about it being a "death effect" though.    

_Death Ward_ doesn't help against fear effects. 

Most death effects have "save or die" fortitude saves, but not every effect with a lethal fortitude save is a death effect.   _Disintigrate_, _phantasmal killer_, and even the _poison_ spell are all examples of spells that can instantly kill you if you fail a fort save, but are not "death spells" and therefore are not implicitly death effects.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 4, 2002)

Phantasmal Killer is clearly a Fear effect.  Paladins are immune.

Just because a spell can cause instant death does not make it a death effect.  Disintegrate is a clear example.  Does Death Ward protect against Disintegrate?  I don't think so.  Does Death Ward protect against Phantasmal Killer?  I don't think so.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 4, 2002)

*Ahh a good argument!!!!*



> Note that the spell description makes a distinction between death spells and magical death effects.




I agree it makes a distinction between death spells and magical death effects.



> This indicates that there spells that are death effects, and things that are not spells that are 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:

www.dictionary.com

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.



> Is it a "magical death effect"? No, it's not, and here's why:




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 but still count as a "magical death effect" why even make the distinction?
> 
> 
> #2 : Furthermore, as the Death Ward spell itself makes clear, not every magical effect that causes death is in fact a "magical death effect". It states: "The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or other effects even if they might be lethal."
> ...




#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...)


----------



## Caliban (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Ahh a good argument!!!!*



			
				Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> blah blah blah*




*shrug*  Whatever.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 4, 2002)

All other things that cause instant death tend to do it directly.  Phantasmal Killer does it indirectly - it creates an illusion that might scare you.  If you're scared you might drop dead from fright.  Thus, I don't consider it a "death effect".  Is death ward going to protect you from a heart attack?  I don't think so, and it's this that kills you, not the phantasmal killer itself.

IceBear


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Xylix_:
> *
> 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?*



Yes.
That was easy, wasn't it.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 5, 2002)

> Yes.
> That was easy, wasn't it.




Unfortunately Yes is not very useful as I have already said

*No*

You have a problem with my no, I have a problem with your yes, because both cannot be right.

To solve this problem we have a discussion, each bringing up facts.  Like Caliban, even if he wants to pretend I don't exist.  

So you say yes,  I say No,  I say no because of all the reasons I have named.  Now I ask

WHY THE HECK DO YOU SAY YES?

Your failure to answer or even attempt to do this shows that you have only contempt for the truth and consider your answer above it.




> All other things that cause instant death tend to do it directly. Phantasmal Killer does it indirectly - it creates an illusion that might scare you. If you're scared you might drop dead from fright. Thus, I don't consider it a "death effect". Is death ward going to protect you from a heart attack? I don't think so, and it's this that kills you, not the phantasmal killer itself.




I contend that Phantamal killer is pretty darn direct.   Adding flavor words to the mechanics does not change a spell.

Heart Attack is extrodinary,  Death ward clearly says magical,  from a magical heart attack,  yes it would.   As it is I could claim that is exactly what finger of death does.   Afterall, it lacks any description of its own.

It would explain the 3d6+caster level damage quite fine...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix,

There are a number of spells that can kill instantly.  Does Death Ward protect against them all?

Does Death Ward protect against Flesh to Stone, Disintegrate, and Holy Word?  I don't think so.

In context, a 'magical effect' is any miscellaneous magical power that is not a spell.  A 'magical death effect' is any 'magical effect' that has a 'death' descriptor.

A 'death spell' is any 'spell' that has a 'death' descriptor.

I think you are getting hung up by the phrase 'magical death' as a general term.  In context, the key phrase is 'magical effect', 'death' is the modifier.


----------



## gfunk (Dec 5, 2002)

The following is a list of spells with the [Death] descriptor in the PHB:

Circle of Death (Necromancy) Fort negates
Death Knell (Necromancy) Will negates
Destruction (Necromancy) Fort partial
Finger of Death (Necromancy) Fort partial
Power Word, Kill (Conjuration) No save
Slay Living (Necromancy) Fort partial
Wail of the Banshee (Necromancy) Fort negates

**That's all**

Death Ward specifies what it does not work against:
1) Death by hit point loss
2) Death by poison
3) Death by petrification
4) "other effects even though they might be lethal"

The DMG mentions a couple of magical death effects that are not spells:

Bodak's Gaze (supernatural)
Arrow of Slaying

_________________________________________________

You stated,

"Just because there are classes that are death spells, and magical death effects does not mean that these classes are by anymeans exclusive."

Let's say that magical death effects are a big circle.  Inside this circle are smaller circles representing supernatural things (Bodak's gaze), spells (magical effects with the [Death] descriptor, and other non-classified magical effects (Arrow of Slaying).

If Phantasmal Killer is included in this circle, it must be in one of the following sub-categories:
a) Supernatural abilities
b) Spells (require the [Death] descriptor)
c) Other magical effects 

Since Phantasmal Killer is a spell that does not have the [Death] descriptor it is not a spell that can be placed within the subject of magical death effects (the big circle).

Your argument, as far as I can tell is that Phantasmal Killer belongs in category c) other magical effects. 

However, since it is a spell it would be superfluous and illogical to place in the other magical effect category.  If you were to do this, why even bother with the [Death] descriptor.


MY POINT

From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is easy to see how Phantasmal Killer can be interpreted as a death effect subject to Death Ward.  

However, from a game mechanics view, this argument does not hold water.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> WHY THE HECK DO YOU SAY YES?*




If you cannot comprehend any of the explanations that have been offered up to this point, I suggest a class in remedial English at your local community college.


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What is eating you today, Caliban ? *




Xylix is Magus_Jerel's evil twin. That's enough to give anyone sane the heebie jeebies.


----------



## Berk (Dec 5, 2002)

I still say it's the mixing up of the words affect and effect.

Death is the affect of a disintigration effect.

Since the effect was not death, it obviously isn't a death effect. 

Now let's take finger of death.

Death is the affect of a death effect.

Now this is a death effect well because it is a death effect. Death is caused directly by death not by another means that just happens to cause death.

Read up and enjoy. =o)


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> *I still say it's the mixing up of the words affect and effect.
> 
> Death is the affect of a disintigration effect.
> *




Oh dear.


----------



## gfunk (Dec 5, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> *I still say it's the mixing up of the words affect and effect.
> 
> Death is the affect of a disintigration effect.
> 
> ...




Oh . . .
Er . . .
Umm . . .
Hmmm . . .

But if you are _affected_ by a Disintegrate spell aren't you _effectively_ dead?


----------



## Berk (Dec 5, 2002)

> But if you are affected by a Disintegrate spell aren't you effectively dead?




different words and different meanings, but same words with the same meanings. You just rearranged the words a bit is all. It all means the same thing. Changing a verb or noun into an adverb gives it a completely different use of the context. My last point still stands. The quote above doesn't do anything to change that point since in it we aren't talking about affect and effect but completely different words that aren't actually all that different. Confusing? Not at all. They are the same, but just different.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 5, 2002)

> But if you are affected by a Disintegrate spell aren't you effectively dead?




LOL  




> There are a number of spells that can kill instantly. Does Death Ward protect against them all?
> 
> Does Death Ward protect against Flesh to Stone, Disintegrate, and Holy Word? I don't think so.




Flesh to Stone is already addressed.  And flesh to stone does not kill, it just turns you to stone 

It says so in the book.  Not a death spell.

Holy word banishes.  It doesn't kill, how can it be a death spell....

Disitegrate I have approached about 5x now, quote what I said, tear it apart and we will talk again.




> The following is a list of spells with the [Death] descriptor in the PHB:
> 
> Circle of Death (Necromancy) Fort negates
> Death Knell (Necromancy) Will negates
> ...




Yep, looked it up myself.  



> Death Ward specifies what it does not work against:
> 1) Death by hit point loss
> 2) Death by poison
> 3) Death by petrification
> 4) "other effects even though they might be lethal"




Also completely agreed



> Let's say that magical death effects are a big circle. Inside this circle are smaller circles representing supernatural things (Bodak's gaze), spells (magical effects with the [Death] descriptor, and other non-classified magical effects (Arrow of Slaying).




You Forgot

d) Death Spells without the death descriptor

Which would be Phantasmal killer  

which would be in the circle of  'magical death effects'



> However, since it is a spell it would be superfluous and illogical to place in the other magical effect category. If you were to do this, why even bother with the [Death] descriptor.




Convience, makes looking around easier.   Same reason for sticking 'illusion' or etc... on.   Perhaps to make some death spells more visible....

Label those 'death spells' which you cannot recover with slay living  (which ironically would only be Phantasmal killer even if you DID include disintegrate    )

Plenty of reasons.  Same reason I do similar things when I design my own systems.




> MY POINT
> 
> From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is easy to see how Phantasmal Killer can be interpreted as a death effect subject to Death Ward.
> 
> However, from a game mechanics view, this argument does not hold water.




*Chuckle*  that depends on how you interpert a particular sentance.  If you interpert it my way YOUR argument does not hold water.  What is really funny is only 
Caliban has bothered to show YOUR point of view holds water.   

To convince me it doesn't hold water show that my interpetation of this does not hold water.

I labeled my premesies now go attack them.    Just like I did Caliban's premises.


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> different words and different meanings, but same words with the same meanings. You just rearranged the words a bit is all. It all means the same thing. Changing a verb or noun into an adverb gives it a completely different use of the context. My last point still stands. The quote above doesn't do anything to change that point since in it we aren't talking about affect and effect but completely different words that aren't actually all that different. Confusing? Not at all. They are the same, but just different. *




Oh dear.


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> d) Death Spells without the death descriptor*




Which don't exist.



> (much sophistry snipped)
> 
> *To convince me it doesn't hold water show that my interpetation of this does not hold water.*




It would appear that the solar radiation in Xylix's world is shifting wavelengths as well.


Hong "not enough ALL CAPS... or EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!" Ooi


----------



## Xylix (Dec 5, 2002)

> Which don't exist.




Oh does it not now.  I suppose that means you can start by elimating a very earlier argument showing it did?

I suppose your lack of attempt means you cannot, or consider yourself above logic.  You are of course the absolute never wrong authority on everything right?

You have read my oppinion on argument from authority surely by now.   So you should have expected this response.

Go show me that this catagory does not exists.  Cease in merely saying  "IT DOES NOT" 

Unless that is all you can say.  In that case go join Auraseer and have your own little discussion.  Since you both like thinking no further than your own unbacked claims.

When you are ready to join the 'discussion' instead of adding commentary, go dig up some of premises and destroy them.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 5, 2002)

Phantasmal Killer is not a death spell.  It is a fear spell.  It kills you because you believe your worse fear is about to get you and you simply die of fright (heart attack).  Are you saying a death ward stops heart attacks too?  There's a freaking limit to what the spell does.

IceBear


----------



## Xylix (Dec 5, 2002)

Icebear  I already answered that question.

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


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh does it not now.  I suppose that means you can start by elimating a very earlier argument showing it did?
> 
> ...




You're not very good at this, you realise.


Hong "for example, you have yet to refer to yourself in Capital Letters" Ooi


----------



## gfunk (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Go show me that this catagory does not exists.  Cease in merely saying  "IT DOES NOT"
> ...




The burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

No one can prove that Santa Claus does not exist.  Just like no one can prove that your phantom Death spell but not [Death] spell category does not exist.

You must convince us that it does exist and you are not doing a very good job.

You seem to be a dictionary-phile, how about this one:

*IMBECLIE* 
Main Entry: im·be·cile 
Pronunciation: 'im-b&-s&l, -"sil
Function: noun
Etymology: French imbécile, n., from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus
Date: 1802
1 : a mentally deficient person; especially : a feebleminded person having a mental age of three to seven years and requiring supervision in the performance of routine daily tasks of self-care
2 : FOOL, IDIOT
- imbecile or im·be·cil·ic  /"im-b&-'si-lik/ adjective


----------



## 0-hr (Dec 5, 2002)

Ya know, I thought this kid was just being obstinate for the sake of trolling; but now I am starting to think that he actually believes that he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. 

That is just sad.


But really people, quit paying attention to him and he will go away. Consider it a test of wills to ignore his bait. He who posts last, loses.


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> * He who posts last, loses. *




HAW HAW!! Ki Ryn posted last! Ki Ryn LOSES!!!1!





Hmm.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 5, 2002)

> The burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.




There is not enough information to proove it EITHER way...  As  such the burdeon of proof is on both sides.    

Inductive arguments are the only method without absolute proof either a statement in some book without a doubt detailing this situation.  This does not exists so only inductive arguments can exist.


Like science, inductive arguments do not show anything without a doubt, they merely show something is very likely.

For instance an inductive argument is one where an individual attempts to show something is likely to exist.   For instance to proove Santa's disexistance I would :

Point out that he could not get everywhere in time.

Point out that you can see what you parents buy, and if you are careful you can even show that those labled from Santa where indeed bought by your parents.

Point out that no one has ever seen santa, despite visits to the north pole.

Point out that they can trace santa's origion, in history.

Point ou that in many cultures santa does not exist, and that the childern recieve no presents prooving he does not give gifts to all the good childern.


etc....

In the end one who is logical is forced to agree, if they agree with the premises that Santa probably does not exist.

If they agree with the premises but do not agree they are then being illogical.  There really is not anything you can do about people being illogical.

That is true even with a deductive argument, which DOES proove.



> Just like no one can prove that your phantom Death spell but not [Death] spell category does not exist.




Nope but they can show it is very questionable.  That is where you where going in your first post.  You had a decent start, and your weak argument would be much stronger in comparrison if you destoyed what there was of mine.

Where it is highly questionable a logical person will move on.  Especialy those who house rule everything anyway 




> You must convince us that it does exist and you are not doing a very good job.




It is very difficult to convince someone that has no intention of considering your argument short of perfect proof.

Which would be about 1/2 of my contenders.  The rest are hard to convince because they have already utterly accepted the premise that only spells with the [death] tag are actually death spells.  Anything else must automatically be thrown out.

There is only so much I can do to that premise, because it does have a certain degree of soundness, just like my argument that Death Ward was using the 'pragmatic' definition.

To me your assertion that it is only [death] without backing is as pointless as me stating that "Thats not true".   Some addressed this correctly by going down and shoring up their premise to try to make it more acceptable.   This made the argument on your side stronger.

Like any good arguer I attacked those premesises to the best of my ability undermining your hard work.



However the net result with a Inductive argument is determined by which most people are going to accept as more likely.   To do that one needs to do more than mere defend their argument they need to destroy the opposition.


----------



## Shirt Guy John (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> proove
> burdeon
> ...




My gods!  I don't care how logical you are, please god please learn some grammar and spelling.  Hell, I know I can't spell worth a darn, but like spell and grammar check your stuff first or something.  You like dictionaries, right?  So go look up some of your words and make sure they're right!  Please!



			
				Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> etc....
> *




NO!!!!!!! Please!  No more!!!



			
				Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> In the end one who is logical is forced to agree, if they agree with the premises that Santa probably does not exist.
> *




umm... what?  Did you just say that people who agree with you are going to agree with you because they agreed?  I'm sorta... lost in that statement.

Okay, here's the thing, you haven't proven that Santa doesn't exist, you've proven that the stereotypical Christmas Santa doesn't exist.  That's like proving God doesn't exist by disproving the Christian God.  It's not right.



			
				Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> However the net result with a Inductive argument is determined by which most people are going to accept as more likely.
> *




So.. by my tally... your position is not the net result of the argument.  Um... isn't that bad for you or something?  Oh wait, I get it!  You're disregarding people that aren't working through this the same way that you are!  I gotcha!



			
				Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To do that one needs to do more than mere defend their argument they need to destroy the opposition. *




One sec...

Alright, I'm back and I brought my Rocket-Launcher.  Bring on the opposition!

I know, I know, "Don't Encourage Him", but how can I not?  It's so fun to play the idiot with the idiot!

Weeeee!!!!!!!!


----------



## jmichels` (Dec 5, 2002)

All this talk of descriptors and stuff may not be convincing enough so lets look at the wording of the spells.  In the Phantasmal Killer spell it actually has the words "... succeed at a Fortitude save or die from fear." in it.  The Death Ward spell says that it doesn't protect you from "...other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification or other effects even if they might be lethal."  That said, PK causes you to "die from fear" and Death Ward doesn't stop you from dying from something other then from a "...death spell or magical death effect."   You can posit that when PKed (and failing your Will save) you are dying from fear which isn't a magical effect.  It is true that the fear was brought on by a magical effect but the fear itself is not magical since it was  the result of "...forming the fears of the subject's subconscious mind into something that his conscious mind can visualize: the most fearsome beast."  So the PKed guy dies due to the nonmagical fear created by his subconcious mind and not from a "magical death effect."  For instance Death Ward wouldn't stop you from dying from a fireball.  The fireball is brought on by a magical effect but the roasting (and the HPs lost due to roasting) is the thing that kills you.  In this case the subconcious mind is the thing that roasts you.


----------



## Xylix (Dec 5, 2002)

> My gods! I don't care how logical you are, please god please learn some grammar and spelling. Hell, I know I can't spell worth a darn, but like spell and grammar check your stuff first or something. You like dictionaries, right? So go look up some of your words and make sure they're right! Please!




*Chuckle*

I probably should bother editing my posts, but they usually end up so darn long!




> umm... what? Did you just say that people who agree with you are going to agree with you because they agreed? I'm sorta... lost in that statement.




Not quite,  I stated that those that agreeded with the premises must agree, if they are logical.

The premises are the fundmental statments:

e.g.
_
Point out that he could not get everywhere in time.

Point out that you can see what you parents buy, and if you are careful you can even show that those labled from Santa where indeed bought by your parents.
_

If they dissagreed with teh premises I would be forced to prove those (or show them likely) to get them to accept them.  To do that I would have to make more premisies.

and so on and so on....

Eventually one of two things would happen:

#1:  We would reach a stage where I managed to construct an argument (by prooving premisies as necessary) that consists of only premisies that they agree with.  If this happened if they where logical, and the logic of my argument was sound then they should agree  (this is inductive, in deductive they MUST agree).

The problem with inductive is they can still believe, what is important though is they accept their postion is unlikey.

#2:  There will be a point where one reaches a fundementally accepted premise.  That is not shared.   Such a premise is one that is accepted by the individual without question.  Perhaps things like 'Murder is wrong,  Nachos is good, the DMs manual is sacred,  etc....'

In any case a fundmentally accepted premise is about possible to convince another not to accept, as they accept this without question.

If you cannot disprove this fundemental premise, or get them to accept it (as you can never proove your own fundmental premise without first removing is fundmentalness, which risks disprooving it).  Then the argument cannot continue.   As such both parties recognize their differances, aplaud their use of logic and leave.

If two people are presenting opposing ideas then 

#3 :  The opposite occures, your argument is disprooved.   In this case if the other is accepted as the most likely resultant you move to that if you are logical.  If there is another likely (in your mind) resultant you might go there instead.  In this case the argument resumes with one party presenting  a new argument.


there is of course....

#4 :  Everybody gets tired of talking.




> Okay, here's the thing, you haven't proven that Santa doesn't exist, you've proven that the stereotypical Christmas Santa doesn't exist. That's like proving God doesn't exist by disproving the Christian God. It's not right.




The stereotypical Christmas Santa is the only one I cared about.  Afterall this is only an example.

As such when I used santa you should subsitute it for 'stereotypical Christmas Santa'

You incorrectly presumed I was refering to all Santa's, just like I incorrectly presumed everyone would understand I would be talking about the 'sterotypical christmas santa'



> So.. by my tally... your position is not the net result of the argument. Um... isn't that bad for you or something? Oh wait, I get it! You're disregarding people that aren't working through this the same way that you are! I gotcha!




Nah,  I only care about the Neutral ones....

When I started getting arguments that consisted of one statement I decided bothering with anyone else was pointless.

Then after dealing with more raw statments I decided I would be happy if people just started attacking my premises.

As such I do suppose my goal is partially successful.  At this point I wouldn't mind you destroying my argument as long as the board started using logic more commonly in arguments.   

Afterall, I would merely house rule the result any way  




> Alright, I'm back and I brought my Rocket-Launcher. Bring on the opposition!




Bring the fun!


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 5, 2002)

Guys, geez, lay of Xylix.

I don't agree with everything he's saying, and I believe death ward doesn't guard against pk, but at least he's arguing well, much better than many people I've seen.

I mean, dissing his spelling? We don't need to all gang up on him, just keep arguing your points and hopefully the truth will come about.


----------



## nameless (Dec 5, 2002)

Aside from the considerable bickering, I want to throw in my two cents. Death Ward IMO protects against ONLY effects with the [death] descriptor. That would include the aforementioned list of spells, plus any other supernatural or spell-like ability which had the [death] descriptor.

The relevant burden or proof is not on Phantasmal Killer, but on Death Ward caring about [death] effects versus "death effects." Given the nature of immunities and wards and such in other areas, like mind-affecting spells, poisons, or even fire, Death Ward probably grants immunity based on descriptors as well.

I can see the logical disconnect between Death Ward's protection and many magical effects (from spells or not, it's irrelevant). If you are insistent in having it protect versus a larger subset of effects, then house rule them to be [death] effects. It's probably a more elegant solution to enumerate what is warded than to create a rule class based on english words. It stops a lot of rules disputes, too.

-nameless


----------



## dcollins (Dec 5, 2002)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *I don't agree with everything he's saying, and I believe death ward doesn't guard against pk, but at least he's arguing well, much better than many people I've seen.
> *




No, he's definitely being a jerk. Anyone who expresses such pleasure at having disgusted others, and fills up a thread with verbiage like this one, absolutely qualifies as a troll.


----------



## Shirt Guy John (Dec 5, 2002)

*I know I should quit but...*

Okay, so that was more of an attempt to be funny than an attempt to do anything.  Sorry if you took me seriously on that, I'm used to communicating with people who are used to my sense of humor.  I humbly appologise.

And now to the topic at hand.  Assuming you (the guy who is way over-logical) were counting only people who had been "neutral" at some point (which is damn funny considering how logical you appear to be.  Prove or disprove that the people on here aren't going to have any bias and i'll know you're crazy), how about people who were on your side in the beginning?  Innitially I was in the camp of "What?  Since when was Phantasmal Killer not a death spell?", but after reading the arguments herein, I switched my view.  It never dawned on me that Phantasmal Killer kills through fear (an indirect death effect, just like a leathal fireball or meteor swarm or death by poison), but once that was drawn to my attention, I couldn't see how Death Ward could possibly protect against it.  IF you were really wanting that, you would have to make a spell that made you immune to fear effects (like the Paladin), which would save your a$$ against this spell.

Now I know that this line of thought has been shown to you before.  I would try to argue using your logic but frankly... I don't follow half of it.  I mean, this is a game with its own rules (though this seems to be the minority opinion) and sometimes logic doesn't win out over pure rules.  I think there's more sophistry than logic in your posts anywho (again, as someone else already pointed out).  But here goes anyways...

Barring any snooty (snotty) definitions that really aren't necessary, I'll try it like this.  In the core books, death spells are a definate thing, like alignments.  There are spells and abilities that are distiguished as "Death effects", such as spells with the death discriptor or the death attack of an assassin.  The spell Death Ward protects against death spells and magical death effects and nothing else.  Death spells are pretty simple; they have the [Death] discriptor on them.  Magical death effects would be anything else that caused instant death by means of a death effect; it doesn't do anything else to you, just kill you dead by hitting your life force.  This makes the Death Ward spell protect against a good sized but well defined group of effects.  Anything else (which includes the Phantasmal Killer spell) is not prevented by this ward.  I think it's fairly well set out.  Now you could argue that the game designers screwed up with not putting the [death] discriptor on Phantasmal Killer, but at this point, I think that if it had been a mistake, it would have been remedied in the FAQ (and it very well could have to my knowledge, 'cause I've never read the damded thing) or in errata somewhere.  As it has not, I think that without going into the real of house rules, you'd have to stick with the definition of death spells that the game was built with.

Now my argument here of course is just a regurgitated of everyone else's, sumarized a very little bit.  I've tried to stick with how a reasonable person who respects the rules at all as they're written (as I think is fair to assume we all should be in the Rules forum), and not how real world philosophical logic would go through it, because frankly, that's just a bit inapropriate 'round here.

And I really wish Troll wasn't used to describe posters like this (and probably people who keep 'em going too... damn me).  Trolls are a noble and powerful breed, who scare the living bezebus outta' me.  this guy's just annoying.


----------



## Berk (Dec 5, 2002)

> 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 (Dec 5, 2002)

*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 (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 5, 2002)

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 (Dec 5, 2002)

da chicken said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 5, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 5, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 5, 2002)

da chicken said:
			
		

> *
> (priors)
> 
> Ok.
> ...




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 (Dec 5, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 5, 2002)

Xylix said:
			
		

> *
> 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.


----------



## Zhure (Dec 5, 2002)

Let me take a crack at it:

(paraphrased from the DMG, page 74) Death Attacks
1 - prevent raise dead from working on the subject.
2 - slay instantly without stabilization.
3 - treat the character as if he were at -10 hit points
4 - are protected against by Death Ward.

Since Phantasmal Killer doesn't mention that Raise Dead won't work on it's target, it's a hint that PK isn't a death effect.


From the Glossary:
"Death: A spell domain composed of nine divine spells
and a granted power themed around the concept of
death. *Also a spell descriptor denoting spells and
effects that slay living creatures. Creatures slain by a
death effect cannot be raised by raise dead.* Either resurrection or true resurrection is required to revivify
such a corpse. See also dead."

*emphasis added*

This strongly implies a link between the death descriptor and death effect spells.

Greg


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re*

I don't think _Phantasmal Killer_ is a Death effect per the D&D definition, I just question whether it constitutes a magical death attack. It is a save or die spell, the only difference being that there are two saves.

I have also read a reference in one of the FAQ's that makes me wonder if the sage doesn't also view Phantasmal Killer as death effect spell. 

I would love an official ruling because we originally assumed _Phantasmal Killer_ was a death spell until recently, when we looked at the spell descriptors.


----------



## -Eä- (Dec 6, 2002)

I would argue that  Death Ward only protects against death spells and magical death effects only if those are always death spells and magical death effects.

Hereby I say that the last sentance is redundant, only there for examples of effects that are not always death effects.


Phanstasmal Killer isn't always a death effect, as a paladin is immune to it, and is therefore not a death effect to a paladin.
Disintegrate is not always a death effect: Oozes receives only damage, and is therefore not always a death effect.
Hit point loss (even to -10) is not always a death effect (see Tarrasque) and is therefore not negated.

This is how I see it: As a premise I have: death spells and magical death effects must always be a death effect, despite race, template and so on...


----------



## Vecna (Dec 6, 2002)

Don't feed the trolls. Especially if they have the [Munchkin] and [Rule-Lawyer] subtypes.


----------



## drnuncheon (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *I don't think Phantasmal Killer is a Death effect per the D&D definition, I just question whether it constitutes a magical death attack. It is a save or die spell, the only difference being that there are two saves.*




So is _disintegrate_, but that's not a 'death effect' either.



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *I have also read a reference in one of the FAQ's that makes me wonder if the sage doesn't also view Phantasmal Killer as death effect spell.*




If you're going to drop 'facts' like that in it behooves you to actually tell us where you saw it.  All too frequently when people say 'I think I remember seeing X' they mean 'I would like to have seen X so much that I have convinced myself I did'.

J


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re*

*On Page 4 of the Monsters FAQ on the Wizards website, the Sage is asked if Phantasmal Killer will kill a troll.* 

The Sage replied "that regneration does not protect against death effects or other special effects that cause death such as massive damage, drowning, starvation, or having one's constitution score lessened to zero."

His answer might be construed as meaning he views _Phantasmal Killer_ as a death effect. Nowhere does he state that the spell falls into the second category of "other special effects that cause death". 

Nowhere does he indicate that death caused by fear is not a death effect, but a "special effect that causes death". 

Disintegrate is not a save or die in the same way as any normal death spell or even _Phantasmal Killer_. Disintegrate kills by turning you to a pile of dust. If you are an extremely large creature, one could even rule that disintegrate only destroys one of your limbs or a part of your body. If one is an ooze, you could rule that only a portion of the ooze is destroyed.

You can disintegrate a sword or wall just as easily as you could a living thing. You cannot however cast Phantasmal Killer or any of the Death spells on a non-living object including undead.

In practice, disintegrate brings about death, but technically it is not a death spell because it can be used in many other ways. It does not solely deal out death. _Phantasmal Killer_ on the other hand does nothing but cause the death of a living target.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> * Phantasmal Killer on the other hand does nothing but cause the death of a living target. *



*

So the whole part about it pulling your worst fear from your mind and make you think your experiencing it is nothing?  

I believe the quote that you took from the Sage could equally mean that he felt that Phantasmal Killer was an "other special effect".  To me, the death from fear by Phantasmal Killer is not much different than death from massive damage - both cause severe trauma to the body and it's this trauma that kills you.  Even if you believe the illusion, your body could be strong enough to withstand this trauma (as simulated by the Fort save).  Phantasmal Killer doesn't kill you, your body's response to it does.

IceBear*


----------



## FlimFlam (Dec 6, 2002)

Summon Monster & Phantasmal Killer work very similar too.

Both create something that CAN kill you, but might not.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re*

It could be construed either way if one goes by the wording. Such is the ambiguity of the answer, but nonetheless, the first words he uses is death effect.

Nowhere in the answer does he in anyway indicate that just because fear is the cause of death that it is not a death effect. I see no reason why the sage would not have indicated that the fear component was different from a death effect.

As I said before, such answers are open to interpretation because they are poorly written. Oh well. We will just go by group consensus until an official revision is made.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 6, 2002)

Definitely looks to me that death ward protects vs. spells and effects with the [death] descriptor.  This use of descriptors is one of the great things about 3E, and I think it's specifically supposed to avoid such ambiguity; whenever possible, assume that descriptors come into play.

And a few other notes:
1) Guys, insults aren't allowed.  Tone it down, especially y'all who know better, please!
2) Incredibly long posts are difficult to read.  If you can't make your point in two paragraphs, maybe you should reconsider your point.
3) "Effect," as a noun, means "result."  "Affect," as a noun, means "the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes."  (You'll almost never correctly use "affect" as a noun -- stick with "effect.")

Daniel


----------



## IceBear (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *It could be construed either way if one goes by the wording. Such is the ambiguity of the answer, but nonetheless, the first words he uses is death effect.
> 
> Nowhere in the answer does he in anyway indicate that just because fear is the cause of death that it is not a death effect. I see no reason why the sage would not have indicated that the fear component was different from a death effect.
> 
> As I said before, such answers are open to interpretation because they are poorly written. Oh well. We will just go by group consensus until an official revision is made. *




But what I'm trying to get across is Death Ward protects against *magical* death effects.  The magical portion of Phantasmal Killer is the illusion of your worst fear.  The rest of it - the part where your body dies - is natural; it's the body failing to endure the trauma that the fear creates.  Remove the *magical* illusion, and there is no fear and thus no death.

IceBear


----------



## Antikinesis (Dec 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Pielorinho _*
> 3) "Effect," as a noun, means "result."  "Affect," as a noun, means "the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes."  (You'll almost never correctly use "affect" as a noun -- stick with "effect.")*




It's pronounced differently, too.

Noun: AF-fect. Verb: af-FECT

Dan's right. If you ain't talkin' psychology, "affect" is a verb.

Just to confuse the issue...  "effect" can be a verb, too.  E.g., "to _effect_ a change...".

Soooo...  The effects of your attempts to effect the proper use of "effect" and "affect" affects our affects.

My head hurts.

-AK


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 6, 2002)

Antikinesis said:
			
		

> *Soooo...  The effects of your attempts to effect the proper use of "effect" and "affect" affects our affects.
> -AK *




Bad AK!  No cookie for you!

Daniel


----------



## Antikinesis (Dec 6, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Bad AK!  No cookie for you!*



Aww, man.  I gave myself a headache _and_ I lost my cookie. 

It's a cruel world.


----------



## Elaer (Dec 6, 2002)

I've just read a three page arguement with boils down to a)the meaning of the word "death" in a fantasy role-playing game, b) the nature of the construction of "magical death effects" when used in a sentance, and c) whether or not philosophers should be allowed to interact with normal society. 

Wittgenstein anyone?


----------



## drnuncheon (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *On Page 4 of the Monsters FAQ on the Wizards website, the Sage is asked if Phantasmal Killer will kill a troll.
> 
> The Sage replied "that regneration does not protect against death effects or other special effects that cause death such as massive damage, drowning, starvation, or having one's constitution score lessened to zero."
> 
> ...




Well, yes, but nowhere does he state or even imply that _phantasmal killer_ and 'death by fear' are magical death effects, either - so his reply is not really evidence for anything except the fact that PK can kill a regenerating creature.

To me, a 'magical death effect' would have to be just death, not 'death by' something, whether that 'something' is drowning, starvation, fire damage, being turned into dust...or fear.

J


----------



## FlimFlam (Dec 6, 2002)

Still wondering if you think death by a summoned creature is  death effect.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 6, 2002)

FlimFlam said:
			
		

> *Still wondering if you think death by a summoned creature is  death effect. *



It's not, and I don't think anyone has indicated that they believe otherwise.


----------



## Artoomis (Dec 6, 2002)

From the Glossary:

"Death: A spell domain composed of nine divine spells
and a granted power themed around the concept of
death. Also a spell descriptor denoting spells and
effects that slay living creatures. Creatures slain by a
*death effect* cannot be raised by raise dead. Either resurrection or true resurrection is required to revivify
such a corpse. See also dead."

It would appear that a "death effect" is a *technical term* for being killed by a spell with a "death" descriptor.

While PK has a "fear" descriptor (which right away tells you the best defense is to be immune to fear effects, not death effects), it does not have a "death" descriptor.

It seems that Death Ward is intended to protect you from getting killed by a method that would prevent you from being raised.

End of story.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 6, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *End of story. *




Oh, how I wish it was 

IceBear


----------



## Antikinesis (Dec 6, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *End of story. *



Dag nab it, Artoomis!  That's how this goshawful thread got started!  You're feeding the trolls, y'know.

Dan...  take away his cookie.

-AK


----------



## Artoomis (Dec 6, 2002)

Antikinesis said:
			
		

> *
> Dag nab it, Artoomis!  That's how this goshawful thread got started!  You're feeding the trolls, y'know.
> 
> Dan...  take away his cookie.
> ...



Hmmm....



> The Phantasmal Killer spell has the Illusion (Phantasm)[Fear, Mind-Affecting] Descriptor.
> 
> Does Death Ward only protect against Necromancy (Death) Spells or all magical death effects?




_That_ was how this thread got started.  I just answered his question, taking into account some of what was said before me.

I want to keep my cookie.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re*

Here is a reply from WOTC customer support concerning rules questions.


Here is what I asked. Short, simple, and to the point:

Does Death Ward protect against the Phantasmal Killer spell?

It has come up more than a few times in the course of campaigns, and we were wondering if we can get an official answer to settle our debates.




Since Phantasmal Killer results in death if the saving throw is failed, yes, it does work against it.

Hope that helps,
****************************************************************** 
Darrin 
Wizards of the Coast - Game Support 
Website: http://www.wizards.com 
Game Support E-Mail: custserv@wizards.com 
Game Support Phone: 1-800-324-6496 
Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 7 PM PST 
Corporate Phone: (425) 226-6500 
Online Store Phone: 1-800-250-7589 
Online Store Email: ordersup@wizards.com 
Please quote this e-mail in any reply.

Take it as you will, but if WOTC customer support thinks Death Ward works against Phantasmal killer, that is good enough for me.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 6, 2002)

I feel obliged to note that WOTC customer support is slightly less knowledgeable than a barrel of lutefisk, and in many cases are obviously wrong.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 6, 2002)

I'm with you there AuraSeer.

However, we can't win this argument now because he has an "offical" answer.  

The good thing is, Death Ward now protects against everything that is a save or die effect.  No more death from massive damage, CdG, etc.  Whoooo hoooo!

IceBear


----------



## Benben (Dec 6, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *I feel obliged to note that WOTC customer support is slightly less knowledgeable than a barrel of lutefisk, and in many cases are obviously wrong. *




And I feel obliged to point out that *lutefisk* is a _death effect_ served to my family every Christmas Eve.

If somebody cast _Phantasmal Killer_ on me, I would be presented with a large plate of flying lutefisk.


----------



## Corwin (Dec 6, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *However, we can't win this argument now because he has an "offical" answer.
> *




Yeah. I'm wondering if we could get away with filing a class action lawsuit against CS for all the bad information they've disseminated, and headaches they've caused us, over the years.

Something has to be done to put an end to this lunacy. They have ruined more games and more debates, with their bad advice, than I can count.


----------



## Mort (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *
> Since Phantasmal Killer results in death if the saving throw is failed, yes, it does work against it.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> ...




You know I was doing a great job staying out of this thread, but my god that's silly.

By this logic if I have 20 HP's and a mage does 31 damage on a fireball I'm protected; while if I had 22 or more HP's I would be affected by the spell.

[edit] yes I realise there is an "always dies" element associated with phantasmal killer - though not really because of the 1st save (which is illusion). I suppose a better example of "that's just not right" is with disintigrate. [edit]


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 6, 2002)

Benben said:
			
		

> *
> If somebody cast Phantasmal Killer on me, I would be presented with a large plate of flying lutefisk.
> *




Flying, huh?  For me, they'd be shivering out of their jellied platters and writhing toward me, down table legs and across the floor and up my legs, while I watched in helpless, fascinated terror.

Daniel


----------



## Benben (Dec 6, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Flying, huh?  For me, they'd be shivering out of their jellied platters and writhing toward me, down table legs and across the floor and up my legs, while I watched in helpless, fascinated terror.
> 
> Daniel *




I don't know if I should gag or die.


----------



## -Eä- (Dec 6, 2002)

Is anyone Norwegian around here!?

I think lutefisk is a splendid course, if served right! I truly recommend trying it (-;


----------



## Sejs (Dec 6, 2002)

Sorry to come into this a bit late but..



> Not important, it is merely example evidence. Whether or not it is supernatural has no impact on its power.




(this is in refrence to an assassin's Death Attack ability being stopped by Death Ward)

Incorrect.

"The subject is immune to all _death spells and magical death effects_. The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or other effects even if they might be lethal."

As an assassin's Death Attack is neither a spell, nor magical in any way (hence the Ex tag), Death Ward would not stop it.  Much in the same way Death Ward could not stop age from killing you, a nasty fall down the stairs from killing you, or a coup de gras from killing you.

Additionally, looking over all the various spells that do have the [Death] descriptor, they all seem to operate on directly destroying life force.  Instead of, say.. scaring you really bad (Phant. Killer), burning you to a cinder (var. fire spells), evaporating all the fluids in your body (Horrid Wilting), transmuting your body to stone (Flesh to Stone), or discorperating your physical body (Disintegrate).  You cannot Raise somone who has been killed by a Death effect because their soul (life force) has been destroyed.  Similar to why you cannot raise someone who has been turned into undead: when you die, your soul goes free to the afterlife ... when you're brought back as undead your soul is forced to reinhabit the body and bound as it's animating force again.  Bound being the operating term.. destroying the body, destroys the soul.


So, examples.. cause examples are fun.


Illusionist John: *casts Phantasmal Killer at Farmer Jenkins*
~Phantasmal Killer manifests in Farmer Jenkins mind as his worst fears: his now passed-on mother~

Phantasmal Mother: "Boo."

Farmer Jenkins: "Oh no! My mother!" 
~Farmer Jenkins' heart stops from the sheer terror of the apparition~
Farmer Jenkins: "Ack, my heart!"
~Farmer Jenkins dies~

In the above example, Farmer Jenkins is killed by fear.  His life-force remains intact, and he could be raised from the dead if his soul wished to come back, and the appropriate spell were cast.

Example 2.


Nerull Nun Nancy: "Die for the glory of the Rotting Lord!" *casts Slay Living on Farmer Jenkins*
~black, unholy power courses from Nerull Nun Nancy's palm, and invades Farmer Jenkins' body~

Farmer Jenkins: "Oh no! An evil priestess!"
~Farmer Jenkins' soul is consumed by the dark power Nerull Nun Nancy commands~
Farmer Jenkins: "Ack, my soul!"
~Farmer Jenkins dies~ 

Now in this example, Farmer Jenkins is killed by having his soul / life-force destroyed by the Slay Living spell.  Said life-force is no longer present _anywhere_. It's gone. Period.  As such, Farmer Jenkins cannot be raised back to life without the application of a Resurrection, True Resurrection, Wish, Miracle, or at the GMs discretion, a Reincarnation spell.


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 6, 2002)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *
> Now in this example, Farmer Jenkins is killed by having his soul / life-force destroyed by the Slay Living spell.  [...] Not even the application of a Wish spell can bring Farmer Jenkins back. *



Er... not quite. Only _Raise Dead_ fails to work on those killed by death effects.

_Resurrection_, _True Resurrection_, or _Reincarnate_ would function correctly to bring Farmer Jenkins back.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 6, 2002)

Oop, my mistake. I read that as 'can't' bring someone back etc etc death effect etc.

One mo, fixing above post.


----------



## Caliban (Dec 6, 2002)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *
> Additionally, looking over all the various spells that do have the [Death] descriptor, they all seem to operate on directly destroying life force.  Instead of, say.. scaring you really bad (Phant. Killer), burning you to a cinder (var. fire spells), evaporating all the fluids in your body (Horrid Wilting), transmuting your body to stone (Flesh to Stone), or discorperating your physical body (Disintegrate).  You cannot Raise somone who has been killed by a Death effect because their soul (life force) has been destroyed.  Similar to why you cannot raise someone who has been turned into undead: when you die, your soul goes free to the afterlife ... when you're brought back as undead your soul is forced to reinhabit the body and bound as it's animating force again.  Bound being the operating term.. destroying the body, destroys the soul.
> *




I think it might be more accurate to say that their spirit/soul/life force is "damaged" rather than "destroyed."   That's why you need more powerful curative magic than _raise dead_ to bring them back. 

If it was actually destroyed, nothing short of a _wish_ or _miracle_ would be able to bring them back.


----------



## Antikinesis (Dec 6, 2002)

Corwin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah. I'm wondering if we could get away with filing a class action lawsuit against CS for all the bad information they've disseminated, and headaches they've caused us, over the years.
> 
> Something has to be done to put an end to this lunacy. They have ruined more games and more debates, with their bad advice, than I can count. *




Dan...  are you listening, Dan the Pie-man?  Corwin wants to punish  WOTC Customer Service.

TAKE AWAY THEIR COOKIE!

[WHINE]Why am I the only one who loses their cookie? It ain't fair. [/WHINE]

-AK


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 7, 2002)

Benben said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know if I should gag or die. *




Make a fort save 

Daniel

Confidential to AK:  look, friend, you just lost a cookie for your contagious headache.  Benben is being confronted with his worst nightmare.  Quitcher whinin'!


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 7, 2002)

*Re*

You know, some of the arguments on here were actually decent such as those bringing up the fact that fear caused death rather than an attack upon the life force. I can relate to this argument.

Some of the poster's reasoning was absolutely pathetic. Just because a fireball hits you for damage that will kill you is in no way a save or die spell per the D&D definition. Anyone who would interpret a death effect or magical death attack this way is being rather block-headed to say the least. Your grasp of D&D jargon and the English language must make you do such things as "Jump off the nearest bridge" because someone in authority told you to do so and you could interpret this statement in no other way than literally.

The summon monster argument was so pathetic that not even posters who believed PK was not a death effect bought into it.

I am sorry, death from massive damage or poison is still not protected by death ward. Why? They are neither a death effect or a magical death attack. PK falls into the second category in my opinion because it is a magical death attack, even if not directly a death effect such as Death touch or a Bodak's gaze. The Poison spell is also not a save or die spell. It causes ability damage that may or may not result in death. Big difference.

In D&D,  a save or die spell means simply save or die, no more, no less. PK falls in this category as it has no other effect.

I do wish WOTC would have given more of an explanation as to why DW protects against PK, but since my gaming group was still undecided, we are going to let WOTC customer support cast the deciding vote.

I am finished with this thread.


----------



## Berk (Dec 7, 2002)

> we are going to let WOTC customer support cast the deciding vote.




I wouldn't let WOTC customer support wipe my rear. Let alone tell me how a spell works.



> Your grasp of D&D jargon and the English language must make you do such things as "Jump off the nearest bridge" because someone in authority told you to do so and you could interpret this statement in no other way than literally.




When you are someone who can't grasp the concept of death descriptors then you shouldn't be talking. That was a very harshe reply. Those that live in glass houses shouldn't go to the bathroom in broad daylight.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 7, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *In D&D,  a save or die spell means simply save or die, no more, no less. PK falls in this category as it has no other effect.
> *




That's fine.  I think that death effects are the ones labeled as such.  A nymph's deadly beauty isn't the same thing as a bodak's soul-sucking evil.  Basically, the argument comes down to whether something needs to be labeled a death effect to be counted as such.

WOTC's customer support gives an absurd answer that nobody here accepts:  they suggest that a magical effect that kills someone if they don't save is a death effect.  As many people here have pointed out, this is poor wording, and certainly nobody agrees that a maximized 10HD fireball vs. a 45-hp PC counts as a death effect -- even though it falls under the literal wording of the WOTC response.

You establish a reasonable counter-rule: you count something as a death effect if it's a binary, die-or-nothing-happens effect.

I think that 3E's strength resides largely in its modular nature, in its use of descriptors for spells, powers, creature types, and so on.  Accordingly, I figure a death effect is one labeled as such.

Until we get a clear, reasonable answer from WOTC (preferably in a FAQ), it doesn't look like there'll be an authoritative answer to this question.  Just make sure that your entire group knows how it'll be ruled ahead of time.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 7, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> * I wouldn't let WOTC customer support wipe my rear. Let alone tell me how a spell works.
> *




I figured that went without saying.  Personally, I don't let *anybody* besides me wipe my rear.

Daniel


----------



## da chicken (Dec 8, 2002)

Does _death ward_ protect against vorpal weapons?  If it does, does it prevent you from losing your head, or just prevent you from dying because you lost it?

Can.  Worms.  Open.

**Bows**


----------



## jonrog1 (Dec 8, 2002)

Xylix, bud, Spock called.  He wants his schtick back.

Okay (openly hijacking the thread, and not really caring if I get snipped) does ANYONE take the rules this seriously?  The Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons would shake his head at some of this.

I'll be over here.  Having fun.

Fun.

And working with my players, not lording my DM status over them in an infantile power play.

Great way to break the stereotype. Arrrg.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 8, 2002)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *Okay (openly hijacking the thread, and not really caring if I get snipped) does ANYONE take the rules this seriously?  The Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons would shake his head at some of this.
> *




Worst.  Hijack.  Ever!

(sorry, couldn't resist).

Yeah, the rules forums definitely get into the how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory sometimes.  But I think that's part of the fun:  arguing the minutiae of a game is kind of like arguing the minutiae of religion, except that nobody gets excommunicated for coming up with the wrong answer.

Hopefully people don't engage in arguments like this in the middle of play.  But if folks like to amuse themselves this way, go for it.  

I used to hang out on a grammar forum where adults, editors and professors, practically came to blows over whether possessive pronouns (his, her, its) were adjectives, pronouns acting as adjectives, or just straight-up pronouns.  So this doesn't seem so weird to me .

Daniel


----------



## Elaer (Dec 8, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, the rules forums definitely get into the how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory sometimes.
> Daniel *




Depends upon the tune


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 8, 2002)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *Xylix, bud, Spock called.  He wants his schtick back.
> 
> Okay (openly hijacking the thread, and not really caring if I get snipped) does ANYONE take the rules this seriously?  The Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons would shake his head at some of this.
> 
> ...




I think a lot of the point is to do all your squabbling here so you don't have to in the game and just allow yourself to have fun. I mean, I may argue about a rule to its absolute finest point, but that doesn't mean I won't toss it from my game if I feel its stupid


----------



## jonrog1 (Dec 8, 2002)

Aaaah, voices of reason.  Feel so much better.  Just sometimes, I read the rules-oriented threads, and I despair.

Now back to my lutefisk pizza.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 12, 2002)

In case anyone's wondering whether i like throwing gasoline on the embers of an almost-burnt-out fire, see below 

And if anyone's wondering whether WOTC customer service is a reliable guide to interpreting the rules -- why, I guess you'll see below, too.

The following is my own email exchange with custserv@wizards.com :



> *For the purposes of the death ward spell, what qualifies as a death spell or a magical death effect?  I can see a few possibilities:
> 1) Only spells or magical effects with the [death] descriptor.
> 2) Any spell or magical effect which directly causes death, including a beholder's disintegration ray, the implosion spell, and the like.
> 3) Any spell or magical effect which results in death by a means other than hit point loss, including a maximized 10th-level fireball which necessitates a save vs. massive damage, a vampire's level drain, and the like.
> ...




So we're right back where we started -- only one WOTC guy says PK is a death effect, and the other says it's not.

Daniel


----------



## IceBear (Dec 12, 2002)

/me hands Dan some napalm to go with that gasoline 

IceBear


----------



## AuraSeer (Dec 12, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> So we're right back where we started -- only one WOTC guy says PK is a death effect, and the other says it's not.
> *



It looks to me like it was even the same guy. How many CSRs named "Darrin" can they have?


----------



## Corwin (Dec 12, 2002)

What this shows is nothing more than the need to be clear and thourough when asking a question. Nothing more.

When Celtavian asked his question, he presented no information to the CS reader. All he asked was, "Does Death Ward protect against the Phantasmal Killer spell?"

The CS guy isn't going to bother looking up a bunch of rules, he's just going to respond with his opinion. There is no guarantee as to just how informed that opinion is. 

Pielorinho got a correct response because he presented facts and quotes to establish a more thourough basis for the CS guy to better answer the question.

Nothing more. The second response is much more believable because the question was better asked.

OK, here's an analogy...

I say, "My car is silver."

Am I telling the truth? Maybe.

Now, I tell you, "My car is silver. Here's a picture of it (yes, it is indeed silver). Oh, and here's a copy of my current registration showing my name, address and the color is listed as silver."

Which one is more believable.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 12, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> It looks to me like it was even the same guy. How many CSRs named "Darrin" can they have? *




D'oh!  I just sent him another email, in which I quoted both Celtavian's email and mine, and asking him whether I was missing something.

I'll post any response I get.

Daniel


----------



## IceBear (Dec 12, 2002)

Now this will be interesting.

Will he admit his mistake, find a creative way to say both are right, or just "lose" your email 

IceBear


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 14, 2002)

*Icebear*, interesting indeed!  Here's the response I got:



> -----Original Message-----
> *Thanks, Darrin!  Sorry to keep after you about this, but we're debating this question over on that how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin message board, the ENBoards.  Someone else quoted an email from you that seemed to contradict the one you sent to me.  To wit, it said:
> 
> [original email from Darrin, claiming that Death Ward protects against PK, snipped]
> ...




So we have Darrin and Bryan claiming that death ward is effective, and Darrin claiming that it's not effective.

Guys, I think this is officially a Rule It Your Own Damn Self occasion.

Daniel


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 14, 2002)

*Re*

I wrote the Sage on the matter. Maybe a few more people should e-mail the Sage, hopefully he will make a call on this. _Death Ward_ is an often used spell and it would be nice to get some kind of list of spells it works against and a more detailed explanation of what the spell protects against.


----------



## Berk (Dec 14, 2002)

*casts raise dead on the horse and sends it away*


----------

