Death Attacks issue

[FadetoBlack]

Death Attacks wrote:

Death Attacks

Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 562

In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the effect, but if the save fails, the creature takes a large amount of damage, which might cause it to die 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.

Are these rules meant to be applied after the fact to new abilities as they come out, even if those abilities do not identify as death attacks?

The question spawned from the Demilich ability, Devour Soul , which appears to check all the boxes for a Death Attack, and was used against a character with Death Ward active.

- failed fortitude save leading to instant death
- raise dead is ineffective

Additionally, I have found only one other ability that self identifies as a Death Attack, the 19th level gunslinger ability Deaths Shot which actually contains the phrase, "this is a death attack." This ability came out well after the CRB which gave us the Death Attacks section.

So the question is, are we to be applying this to every spell we think might be a death attack to see if the bonuses from death ward (when cast) can be applied?

A search of everything so far seems to indicate that death effects have been pretty clearly defined, but it seems like everyone ignores this one section of the CRB for some reason.

[Ryan Freire]

If it doesn't have "this is a death attack" or the [death] tag RAW it doesn't apply that ruleset.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I'd rule that Death Ward helps, but I'm very much a RAI/RATSHBW guy.

This is probably yet another case of the designers not taking enough care with writing abilities.

[Diego Rossi]

For me, the first step to see if something is a death attack is to check if it kills regardless of the amount of damage done.
If that is true the second step is to see if it is an Ex or SU ability or if it is a spell or spell-like ability.

Generally, if it is an Ex ability I wouldn't consider it a Death Attack unless it explicitly says it (like Death’s Shot ).

Generally, I consider instant death SU, Spell-like abilities and spells as Death Effects unless they explicitly say they aren't.

But those are generalities; unless it the specific effect say what it is you should consider every single case.

I would say that Devour Soul is decidedly a death effect.

To reply to the broad question
"Are these rules meant to be applied after the fact to new abilities as they come out, even if those abilities do not identify as death attacks?"
Yes, the CRB is the core ruleset of the game, so you must apply its rules to successive expansions of it. Sadly not all the supplements say clearly if something is a death effect. Sometimes, maybe for lack of space or simple carelessness, that information is absent.

[Ryze Kuja]

It's definitely a Death effect. It traps the soul and the body decays and turns to dust within 1 round. It even calls a target who doesn't save a "Dead" creature, and details the multi-step method that which Resurrection can even occur.

Even if it doesn't explicitly say "This is a Death effect" in the Devour Soul ability, it should still be treated as a Death effect. Add this to the small mountain of examples of bad writing. I think you would run into Breach of Trust issues with your players if you disallow Death Ward from countering this.

[FadetoBlack]

Ryan Freire wrote:

If it doesn't have "this is a death attack" or the [death] tag RAW it doesn't apply that ruleset.

If that is the case, why would this rule set be in the CRB at all? There are no CRB abilities or spells that contain that language that I can find.

[Ryze Kuja]

And FWIW, Death Ward only protects against MAGICAL death effects, so it only affects Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural effects. Death attacks from Extraordinary abilities are not magical, so Gunslinger's Death Shot and Slayer's Assassinate would not be affected by Death Ward.

[Ryan Freire]

FadetoBlack wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

If it doesn't have "this is a death attack" or the [death] tag RAW it doesn't apply that ruleset.

If that is the case, why would this rule set be in the CRB at all? There are no CRB abilities or spells that contain that language that I can find.

Slay living, destruction, there's a ton here

Just set the descriptor tab to [death] and see for yourself There's a ton of bestiary abilities too.

[FadetoBlack]

Ryan Freire wrote:

FadetoBlack wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

If it doesn't have "this is a death attack" or the [death] tag RAW it doesn't apply that ruleset.

If that is the case, why would this rule set be in the CRB at all? There are no CRB abilities or spells that contain that language that I can find.

Slay living, destruction, there's a ton here

Just set the descriptor tab to [death] and see for yourself There's a ton of bestiary abilities too.

Those are death effects, not death attacks. They're different and separate things in the rules, which is why this question came up in the first place.

[FadetoBlack]

Ryze Kuja wrote:

And FWIW, Death Ward only protects against MAGICAL death effects, so it only affects Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural effects. Death attacks from Extraordinary abilities are not magical, so Gunslinger's Death Shot and Slayer's Assassinate would not be affected by Death Ward.

Except that the death attacks section doesn't mandate that they be magical and does mandate that death ward applies. The gunslinger ability specifically says it's a death attack, not effect, so it should be covered.

[FadetoBlack]

I want to clarify for everyone that I'm not being intentionally nit picky on this. As far as I can tell, death attacks and death effects are two different things.

Death effects might be a type of death attack, but the same definition doesn't apply to both of them or they would be redundant.

That's the entire reason for this thread. There's a rule set which in every thread I've seen, gets converted from attacks to effects and people answer the effects question but not the attacks question. Why are death attacks a section in the CRB when only death effects are ever specifically called out in the text of spells.

Was this a copy/paste error or are we meant to look at them as two different things?

[Ryan Freire]

You're overcomplicating

[Diego Rossi]

You think that an effect that kills you isn't an attack?

[Ryze Kuja]

FadetoBlack wrote:

Ryze Kuja wrote:

And FWIW, Death Ward only protects against MAGICAL death effects, so it only affects Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural effects. Death attacks from Extraordinary abilities are not magical, so Gunslinger's Death Shot and Slayer's Assassinate would not be affected by Death Ward.

Except that the death attacks section doesn't mandate that they be magical and does mandate that death ward applies. The gunslinger ability specifically says it's a death attack, not effect, so it should be covered.

Just another example of bad writing.

Death Ward explicitly says it affects "Death Spells and Magical Death Effects".

Death Attacks general rule says Death Ward protects against all Death Attacks, but doesn't specify whether the Death Attack has to be magical or mundane.

Death's Shot and Assassinate and Extraordinary abilities and are therefore not magical.

RAW, Death Ward should protect against all Death Attacks. <--- General Death Attack rule.

RAW, Death Ward should only protect against "Death Spells and Magical Death Effects. <---- Specific Rule of a Spell

If Death Ward is meant to protect against all Death attacks and all Death effects, then why doesn't it say that in the spell description? Why does it only call out Magical Death Spells and Magical Death Effects?

We all know that Specific Rules overrule General Rules, and the General Rule didn't specify magical or mundane. The General Rule says All Death Attacks, the Specific Rule says "Death Spells and Magical Death Effects".

I'd say choose whichever one suits your table better. Personally, I have no problem with either ruling. It would make sense to have it protect against all death attacks and all death effects just as much as it would make sense to have it protect against Magical Death effects only.