I agree this is the most reasonable interpretation and is how I would play it in my games.I also see this as a reasonable interpretation.
If you failed the save.Would treat the target 18 Con as -18 con and heal from there. You still alive.
I third it being a reasonable interpretation, but emphasis on the interpretation. I'm not sure whether or not I'd allow it in my game - it'd probably depend on the campaign.
In XCrawl, the motto is "If you die, you die," and I've had more PC deaths than in every other game I've played in and ran combined (7 I can think of off hand, in about a year of playing - possibly another one or two I'm forgetting at the moment). So I'd probably go with the more lethal option of saying "Death effect. Your HP is now -inf. Sorry, time to try a new character."
In the Kingmaker game I plan on starting soon, I'd be much more lenient, and probably allow it. Although I might set the negative hp to something where there's a chance of it failing and/or not managing to bring you awake even if it saves you. Given it heals for a minimum of 14 damage, something like "You're at twice your negative con" would probably work (although it penalizes people for having higher con scores). Maybe "negative con -20". Enough so that there's still a chance of death (at least at the mid levels), but not necessarily a high one.
I'm going to have to play Devil's Advocate and say that it is entirely reasonable to disallow Breath of Life for a successful CdG from a balance perspective. This is a game where a fighter/paladin/inquisitor can deal out damage in the 100s in a full round that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. CdG requiring something more than breath of life doesn't feel that broken to me.
In which order do the rules override (see below), assuming that we take a CdG as a "death effect?"
Death Ward in first line of spell description states "The subject gains a +4 morale bonus on saves against all death spells and magical death effects." and ends with "Death Ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks, even if those attacks might be lethal." (Core 264-265) but then main Death Attacks entry in back of book (Core 562) states as the last bulleted point of Death Attacks that "The spell death ward protects against these attacks."
So, does the spell specific entry, stating Death Ward only protects against magical effects override the main entry in the back about Death Attacks? Or vice versa?
Seems that you should apply rules across the board for fairness (a lame argument for some) otherwise there is no way to prevent or help prevent death by coup de grace and possibly other similar attacks (assassin's death attack, massive damage, etc.)
I guess immunity to crits would prevent, right?
|
Core book page 562:
A death attack allows the victim a fort save to avoid the effect. But if the save fail, the character dies instantly.
-The spell death ward protects against these attacks.
Unless its writen somewhere that a specifuc case overule the normal conditions this is the rule that applay.
Core book page 562:
A death attack allows the victim a fort save to avoid the effect. But if the save fail, the character dies instantly.
-The spell death ward protects against these attacks.Unless its writen somewhere that a specifuc case overule the normal conditions this is the rule that applay.
I would point out that it just says it protects against, not makes you immune to. And the death ward spell does help protect against them - it gives you a +4 bonus to some of them.
Admittedly, it's not at all clear.
I agree, I can accept someone HOUSERULES coup de grace is not a death effect. And I may end up doing the same. ( probably not, I like that there are mundane ways to give Death Effects)
But, it meets the criteria for a Death Effect for a rules section.
Greg
It seems it is a death attack, but I do wish death attacks were labeled. It is nice to know that death ward protects against such things though.
I still think it's really strange that if you stab a guy in the throat while he's asleep, he can't be raised, but if you stab him in the throat in a fight, he can. How the heck does the raise dead spell know how he died?
I always assumed death effects were magical effects that snuffed out the life force or whatever, hence making it impossible to raise them since there was nothing to bring back. That's what made such effects horrible and evil. Shanking a guy doesn't sound at all like a death effect.
(and, on another note, why would an Assassin get the specific ability to make it hard to raise a victim of his death attack, if all victims of his death attack are automatically unable to be raised?)
It seems it is a death attack, but I do wish death attacks were labeled. It is nice to know that death ward protects against such things though.
I still think it's really strange that if you stab a guy in the throat while he's asleep, he can't be raised, but if you stab him in the throat in a fight, he can. How the heck does the raise dead spell know how he died?
I always assumed death effects were magical effects that snuffed out the life force or whatever, hence making it impossible to raise them since there was nothing to bring back. That's what made such effects horrible and evil. Shanking a guy doesn't sound at all like a death effect.
(and, on another note, why would an Assassin get the specific ability to make it hard to raise a victim of his death attack, if all victims of his death attack are automatically unable to be raised?)
The coup de grace represents you slitting a throat or something. A regular fight is just him dying because (fill in good reason to die that is not insta-death)
The coup de grace represents you slitting a throat or something. A regular fight is just him dying because (fill in good reason to die that is not insta-death)
Yeah. I just don't see why a slit throat would make you any more immune to raise dead than multiple stab wounds. I mean, there's a reason assassins get a specific ability to do this.
It may or may not be that way by RAW, but it doesn't seem to jive with RAI. IMHO.
The coup de grace represents you slitting a throat or something. A regular fight is just him dying because (fill in good reason to die that is not insta-death)Yeah. I just don't see why a slit throat would make you any more immune to raise dead than multiple stab wounds. I mean, there's a reason assassins get a specific ability to do this.
It may or may not be that way by RAW, but it doesn't seem to jive with RAI. IMHO.
The coup de grace is a death affect because it is an insta-kill. That is all a death affect is by RAW.
Most death affects are magical though.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You're arguing mechanics, he's arguing flavor. And I think I agree with him.
I swing my greataxe at a guy, roll a crit, and drop him to -30 hp with one mighty blow? Oh yeah, he can be raised. Not a death attack after all.
Rogue pokes him with a dagger while he sleeps? Oh, no, that's a death attack, no raise dead for you.
Huh?
Besides, I'm not even sure a Coup De Grace is a so called "Death Attack". It kinda fits the description, but it isn't described as one anywhere. Personally, I'd only consider spells with the [death] descriptor or attacks specifically called out as death effects to be "death attacks" as far as raise dead is concerned.
Yeah, the Assassin gets an ability called "Death Attack", but then later he gets an ability that makes it harder to use raise dead on someone he kills with it. Again, huh? Why specifically mention raise dead if raise dead already doesn't work on it?
Either that's a goof, or it's like I say. When they talk about 'death attacks' in the glossary, they mean things with the [death] descriptor (or things specifically called out as a death effects). The fact that they say "The spell death ward protects against these attacks." backs that up.
You're arguing mechanics, he's arguing flavor. And I think I agree with him.
I swing my greataxe at a guy, roll a crit, and drop him to -30 hp with one mighty blow? Oh yeah, he can be raised. Not a death attack after all.
Rogue pokes him with a dagger while he sleeps? Oh, no, that's a death attack, no raise dead for you.
Huh?
Besides, I'm not even sure a Coup De Grace is a so called "Death Attack". It kinda fits the description, but it isn't described as one anywhere. Personally, I'd only consider spells with the [death] descriptor or attacks specifically called out as death effects to be "death attacks" as far as raise dead is concerned.
Yeah, the Assassin gets an ability called "Death Attack", but then later he gets an ability that makes it harder to use raise dead on someone he kills with it. Again, huh? Why specifically mention raise dead if raise dead already doesn't work on it?
Either that's a goof, or it's like I say. When they talk about 'death attacks' in the glossary, they mean things with the [death] descriptor (or things specifically called out as a death effects). The fact that they say "The spell death ward protects against these attacks." backs that up.
It fits the rules without specifically being called out as one. I can see it going either way. In my games it is not one. I think death attacks should be special.
Coup de Grace is not a Death Attack. Death Attack (Ex) is a Death Attack.
Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to a negative
amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution
drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The
character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot
benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be
restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally
unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead
character to life also restores the body either to full health
or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the
spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need
not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other
conditions that affect dead bodies.Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain
a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal
to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of
damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you
must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw
fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you
take half your total hit points or more in damage from
multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half
your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage
rule does not apply.
FAQ bait right here. Breath of Life circumvents the normal rules, but it either needs to state "when a character reaches negative constitution by damage" or "treat a character which dies from a failed save (such as coup de grace, massive damage, or the Cloud Kill spell) as having..."
Last session I decapitated the groups paladin with a critical effect from the critical hit deck. Luckily the cleric was close and had a breath of life prepared so I allowed the spell to save the player even though he lost his head. I am not sure if I made the right ruling, but the effect wasn't listed as a death effect so I assumed it would work. I only pictured the cleric holding the paladins head in place while casting the spell. The paladin now sports a very nasty looking scar all around his neck as a reminder of how close he came to dying.
I don't think coup de grace is a death effect at all (not in the mechanical game term sense anyways).
I still think it's really strange that if you stab a guy in the throat while he's asleep, he can't be raised, but if you stab him in the throat in a fight, he can. How the heck does the raise dead spell know how he died?Simply having a PC stab an NPC while they're asleep is not a death effect.
Having the PC perform a successful coup de grace on the other hand is, and has always been a death effect.
Normally the critical hit is sufficient to out right kill the target, but it's the fort save that determines whether or not a simple raise can bring them back.
Note that beheading the corpse also prevents a simple raise from working, so there are certainly untrained mundane ways to foil this spell (and others).
There's nothing wrong with CDG being a death effect. It certainly meets the qualifications for it.
-James
Do you really believe this? Or are you just recommending it as a sensible house rule? If it is the former, where are these rules coming from?
Do you really believe this? Or are you just recommending it as a sensible house rule? If it is the former, where are these rules coming from?
I still think it's really strange that if you stab a guy in the throat while he's asleep, he can't be raised, but if you stab him in the throat in a fight, he can. How the heck does the raise dead spell know how he died?Simply having a PC stab an NPC while they're asleep is not a death effect.
Having the PC perform a successful coup de grace on the other hand is, and has always been a death effect.
Normally the critical hit is sufficient to out right kill the target, but it's the fort save that determines whether or not a simple raise can bring them back.
Note that beheading the corpse also prevents a simple raise from working, so there are certainly untrained mundane ways to foil this spell (and others).
There's nothing wrong with CDG being a death effect. It certainly meets the qualifications for it.
-James
Death Attacks
In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the effect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly.
* Raise dead doesn't work on someone killed by a death attack or effect.
* Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
* In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
* The spell death ward protects against these attacks.
In my own game, coup de grace would NOT count as a death attack for numerous reasons discussed above.
But I'm not DMing right now, so if I needed to argue with my DM, who lets say takes a coup de grace or massive damage or other similar attack (assassin's death attack) as a back of the book death attack (pg. 562 Core), should the wording of the spell Death Ward that specifically states that it helps in checks related to magical effects and attacks apply or not?
To Merck: The spell Death Ward in its first sentence says that it helps saves against magical attacks and effects. A coup-de-grace could be delivered by a mundane dagger in the hands of a thief using the extraordinary ability of sneak attack <not magical>.
It matters to in the "what if something is immune to death attacks but not critical hits" sense -- if coup de grace is a death effect they are immune, if it is just a special rule of a critical hit, they may still die.
<see previous post for specifics>
Normally, when you have a special ability/attack, it specifically lists any particular descriptors that apply. Look at bardic music, for example. Coup de grace lists no [death] descriptor, so I wouldn't call it a death attack despite meeting all the criteria. That's fine, because it means it can bypass death ward and the Repose domain granted power that way without incident.
Coup de Grace is not a death effect. Death effects are magical effects that snuff the victim's life force. Unless it is a spell with the [death] descriptor or it is specifically described as being a death attack, it is not a death effect.
Seriously.
How exactly does cutting someone's throat in their sleep make it impossible to cast raise dead on them? How is that supposed to work?
In my own game, coup de grace would NOT count as a death attack for numerous reasons discussed above.
But I'm not DMing right now, so if I needed to argue with my DM, who lets say takes a coup de grace or massive damage or other similar attack (assassin's death attack) as a back of the book death attack (pg. 562 Core), should the wording of the spell Death Ward that specifically states that it helps in checks related to magical effects and attacks apply or not?
To Merck: The spell Death Ward in its first sentence says that it helps saves against magical attacks and effects. A coup-de-grace could be delivered by a mundane dagger in the hands of a thief using the extraordinary ability of sneak attack <not magical>.
It matters to in the "what if something is immune to death attacks but not critical hits" sense -- if coup de grace is a death effect they are immune, if it is just a special rule of a critical hit, they may still die.
<see previous post for specifics>
Death ward specifies it not working on nonmagical affects. The spell itself determines how it works more than an outside ruling. Most death affects are magical in nature, but not all, and that was not thought of in the death attack definition.
For the sake of argument since a coup de grace is an automatic hit why can't he just do it again. I don't see people surviving many of those.
Coup de Grace is not a death effect. Death effects are magical effects that snuff the victim's life force. Unless it is a spell with the [death] descriptor or it is specifically described as being a death attack, it is not a death effect.
Seriously.
How exactly does cutting someone's throat in their sleep make it impossible to cast raise dead on them? How is that supposed to work?
These are my thoughts as well.
I thought the issue was with breath of life's inability to overcome death effects?
I thought the issue was with breath of life's inability to overcome death effects?
The OP was, the conversation has diverged and I think I may make a new thread dedicated to the specific situation and question of "whether coup de grace/massive damage/death attack" would count as "death attacks", etc.
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So honestly you have it both ways: as RAW it's a death effect, and it seems to work as modeling as well.-James
No, it really isn't. The only things that are death effects are those specficially labeled. A coup de grace is not labeled, and just because you find some consistency with the rules that describe how THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY LABELED death effects interact does not a death effect make.
Someone already mentioned Phantasmal Killer. It fits your fort save or die paradigm, yet, as a spell, it could clearly be called out as a death effect. It is not. It is a fear affect. Paladins are immune, and Death Ward helps not a tiny bit.
Meanwhile, take the bard's Deadly Performance. This is called out in the description as a mind affecting death effect. Death ward helps, yay!
Quivering Palm. Not listed as a death effect, though. Why call out one class ability but not another if the "fort save or die" is the only qualifier? The simple reason is that the descriptor of how death affects usually work is for purposes of adjudicated those things deemed Death Effects by description. If it is not labeled "Death Effect," then by RAW it is NOT a death affect. Everyone is quoting that section out of context. The context is to determine how a given affect functions once you know it's that type of effect, not to determine if something is or is not a type of effect. The description of the ability, spell, or action tells you that.
Here's the strongest point in favor of my view: The Assassin's death attack is not a death effect. If it was, True Death at 4th level literally makes no sense. The only logical reading is that Death Attack is just an attack that can kill, which is not necessarily a Death Effect. Otherwise there is an entire class ability that, as written, serves no purpose. The best reading of rules is the most cohesive reading. The most cohesive reading is that the passage being quoted about death effects is not for purposes of an inclusive categorization, but a fleshing out of an exclusive category.
TLDR:
No. If it doesn't say "Death Effect" or "[Death]" than breath of life an other rezzing works fine, as the only way to be a Death Effect is to be described as such.
House rule it however you want, but the RAW are clear.
Here's the strongest point in favor of my view: The Assassin's death attack is not a death effect. If it was, True Death at 4th level literally makes no sense. The only logical reading is that Death Attack is just an attack that can kill, which is not necessarily a Death Effect. Otherwise there is an entire class ability that, as written, serves no purpose. The best reading of rules is the most cohesive reading. The most cohesive reading is that the passage being quoted about death effects is not for purposes of an inclusive...
Actually, it is the only arguement I have seen that defends the viewpoint of coup de grace is not a death attack. And it is a good one.
The other stuff doesn't really stand on it's own.
Quivering palm was not being discussed because the OP's situation was dealing with a coup de grace. Same reason no one brought up morganti blades dealing death attacks. It is a non-sequitor.
Possibly, will rethink my thunkin' on CdG as a DA.
Greg
|
Developer
|
The other stuff doesn't really stand on it's own.
I just put the other stuff in to show instances of save or die effects which either were or were not explicitly labeled death effects. I know Quivering Palm is not in question, but my point is that anything not labeled a death effect is not a death effect, so Paizo labeling one class ability but not others leans in my favor.
Not really a non-sequitor at all.
It might not stand on its own, but it's support for the central point: Either it's explicitly labeled a death effect, or it's something else.
"Rules as written" would be "Interpretation following positive assertion" not "claims I can pushed based on analogy and no finding an explicit disproof".
There aren't many arguments against Coup De Grace being a death effect but mostly because there aren't any supporting claims at for it being a death effect - the CRB doesn't say "this isn't a death effect" because it doesn't anything to even give the impression that it might be a death effect.
The entire argument hinges around CdG being a "non-magical death effect" an assertion that seems made-up entirely by analogy - ie, requires a fort save and slaying instantly.
The thing is that the list that keeps being quoted, is a list of properties, not a definition. If it was a definition, things wouldn't have to be labelled "death effect" but, in fact, a whole range of things are labelled death effects.