Does Phantasmal killer and/or weird require a powers check when cast? Do they requre madness or horror checks?
both spells are left off the list in the Ravenloft 3.0 hardcover.
Thanks
They are both Mind-affecting & fear descriptor spells however, neither one has the evil or death descriptors. However, given the nature of Ravenloft I would tend to agree with you.
Thank you,
They are both Mind-affecting & fear descriptor spells however, neither one has the evil or death descriptors. However, given the nature of Ravenloft I would tend to agree with you.
and i disagree exactly because they are not death or evil...
Note also that while Phantasmal Killer and Wierd are not listed, Nightmare and Wail of the Banshee are, and both fuction similarly (although they are considered Necromancy).
Technically, the Casting of the spells themselves do not warrant a powers check. However, their use does, and obviously, murdering someone with either spell is still indirectly warranting a powers check.
But casting these spells themselves doesn't require a Powers check, so you don't have to make them any more than with any other spell that doesn't require the check. If a werewolf jumps you and you use a Phantasmal Killer to kill it, you have the same chance of requiring a Powers check as you would if you used an Orb of Fire to kill it.
Murdering someone calls for a Powers check no matter what you use to do it, so saying a Phantasmal Killer spell would require a check in that case is somewhat pointless.
I'm pretty sure that those spells don't force madness or horror saves either. It might mention that Illusion spells can force the target to make these saves if they are convincing, I can't remember off the top of my head. Then again, if the guy is convinced the Killer is real, he's dead anyway, so being horrified would be a small issue......
But casting these spells themselves doesn't require a Powers check, so you don't have to make them any more than with any other spell that doesn't require the check. If a werewolf jumps you and you use a Phantasmal Killer to kill it, you have the same chance of requiring a Powers check as you would if you used an Orb of Fire to kill it.
Murdering someone calls for a Powers check no matter what you use to do it, so saying a Phantasmal Killer spell would require a check in that case is somewhat pointless.
I'm pretty sure that those spells don't force madness or horror saves either. It might mention that Illusion spells can force the target to make these saves if they are convincing, I can't remember off the top of my head. Then again, if the guy is convinced the Killer is real, he's dead anyway, so being horrified would be a small issue......
agreeing here completely with you
However, I agree also that Weird and Phantasmal Killer lend themselves much more readily to a cruel use - making a person die, and also filling their last moments with sheer terror.
Ultimately, it's DM's call. If you're using it against an innocent, then sure. If you're using it in combat against a foe who is otherwise observing ethical codes of combat, then it probably still triggers a check.
If you're using it in combat against a foe who would very happily do the same against you, then maybe not. And if you're using it in combat against a foe who has already attempted to use it against you, then almost definitely not.
There's nothing in the rules that really supports this, so we're going to have to get our hands dirty, as intelligent flexible players, and help the poster come up with alternatives to the absentee body of rules. Those are my suggestions. Take them or leave them as you see fit.
1)The spell Nightmare is deemed worth of a powers check and is also an Illusion spell.
2)Gaslighting is described in the madness saves section as purposefully attempting to drive another person insane.
I checked the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook as well, and they were once again skipped. I wonder if this was just a big oversight on the authors part, or if they truly believed the spells didn't deserve powers checks. I suppose that you could simply say "Well, all i'm doing is making an illusion. If they die because they were scared of it, well, then that's their fault."
Sounds an awful lot like what an illusionist darklord would say :evillaugh
It just seems cruel to kill someone using their worst fears against them.
I checked the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook as well, and they were once again skipped. I wonder if this was just a big oversight on the authors part, or if they truly believed the spells didn't deserve powers checks. I suppose that you could simply say "Well, all i'm doing is making an illusion. If they die because they were scared of it, well, then that's their fault."
Sounds an awful lot like what an illusionist darklord would say :evillaugh
It might also have to do with the balance factor, in that there are not many kill spells out there apart from the energy types that would not directly warrant a power check, and knowing that illusion is not one of the most powerful schools, it comes to mind that it was done on purpose to keep an illusionist in balance in a setting rife with undeads who are immune to illusions by and in itself.
One logical extension of this would be that Phantasmal Killer and Weird IYC would be ineffective against Innocents, who simply don't have enough nastiness in them for the spell to draw upon.
One way to make it seem less dubious would be to rule that, in Ravenloft, the spell doesn't just turn its targets' fears against them, but rather their own nastiest thoughts and impulses. If you interpret it that way, you can justify it as a ***-for-tat effect rather than maliciousness, much like volleying a death-effect spell back onto its caster with Spell Turning.
One logical extension of this would be that Phantasmal Killer and Weird IYC would be ineffective against Innocents, who simply don't have enough nastiness in them for the spell to draw upon.
Its an interesting and nice way of an excuse to make it seem plausible in Ravenloft,
thank you for that,
however,
the spells are not stated to require a power check neither fear nor insanity checks.
thats my point of view, anyway..
The whole point of the spell is to bring to form the worst fear of the victim. The touch delivered by that fear causes them to die from just that, what they fear.
so, if you had no fears, the spell would not work. where does that come into the equation?, immunity to fear does not release one from the effects of this spell...weird
some more food for thought
so, if you had no fears, the spell would not work. where does that come into the equation?, immunity to fear does not release one from the effects of this spell...weird
Phantasmal Killer has the "Fear" descriptor, which makes it a fear effect. Anything immune to a fear effect is immune to the spell. Much in the same way that Fireball has the "Fire" descriptor, creatures immune to fire are immune to Fireball.
"Having no fears" is not good enough. Unless you are flat-out immune to fear effects then the spell can "tell" what can make you scared enough to kill you. It is magic I guess......
It's also Mind-Affecting, so undead (and anything else immune to mind-affecting spells/effects) are immune to it as well.
Phantasmal Killer has the "Fear" descriptor, which makes it a fear effect. Anything immune to a fear effect is immune to the spell. Much in the same way that Fireball has the "Fire" descriptor, creatures immune to fire are immune to Fireball.
"Having no fears" is not good enough. Unless you are flat-out immune to fear effects then the spell can "tell" what can make you scared enough to kill you. It is magic I guess......
It's also Mind-Affecting, so undead (and anything else immune to mind-affecting spells/effects) are immune to it as well.
As i thought so...
Secondly, this is just house ruling in the interests of greater continuity. Hardly a DM punishing a PC. These could apply equally well to NPCs. Heck, they could be the start of a compelling plot arc... or perhaps (depending on whether the Powers check failed) the end of one...
Thirdly, is anybody else entertained that Rotipher's post got censored because she tried to write the phrase "t[i]t-for-tat"?
First off, I don't see this thread as reflecting badly on the authors in any way. They're not even mentioned. Unless of course you've read something into this that I didn't...?
I checked the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook as well, and they were once again skipped. I wonder if this was just a big oversight on the authors part, or if they truly believed the spells didn't deserve powers checks.
For the benefit of the folks in this thread confused on the basic issue of whether or not the rules-as-written have anything to say about it, or whether it was just an "authorial oversight," just run down this checklist. Until a PH spell under consideration hits a "yes" to one of these questions, then, according to the seemingly perplexing rules, there's no powers check for casting a spell*. (Technically, this is even true in the RLPH, suffering as it does from the developers' misbegotten additions to the wizard and sorcerer class rules.)
1. Does the spell have the Evil descriptor? If yes, then powers check. If no, go to 2.
2. Does the spell have the Necromantic descriptor? If yes, go to 3. If no, go to 4.
3. Does the necromantic spell have offensive effects, create or enhance the undead, or manipulate a subject's life force? If yes to any of these, then powers check. If no, then go to 4 (and your spell is probably deathwatch).
4. Is the spell specifically listed in the Spells in Ravenloft section? If yes, then go to 5. If no, "Any aspect of a D&D Player's Handbook spell not altered in the following listings functions normally in Ravenloft." I.E., no powers check.
5. Does the specific spell listing say it requires a powers check? If yes, then powers check. If no, then no.
Keep in mind that the alternative to trusting you guys to figure this out for yourselves was about 4 pages' worth of "[PH Spell Name]: Unaltered." listings.
* As some posters have rightly pointed out, that just means the spell isn't inherently evil; it's just a tool. And like any tool, it can still be used toward evil ends. (An axe murderer earns powers checks for murdering folks, not for wielding an axe.)
As I stated before, I voiced concern that the spells functioned much like Nightmare and Wail of the Banshee, and was wondering why the spells weren't mentioned in the Ravenloft players handbook. It just seemed like a wonderfully convienent loophole in the rules, considering the nature of ravenloft and the many spells changed. A wizard casting wail of the banshee to defend himself still incurs a powers check simply because its a death and necromantic effect, but an illusionist can cast Wierd to defend himself, and not incur any ill effects at all. I wasn't 'attacking' the writers.
* As some posters have rightly pointed out, that just means the spell isn't inherently evil; it's just a tool. And like any tool, it can still be used toward evil ends. (An axe murderer earns powers checks for murdering folks, not for wielding an axe.)
I would also like to point out the moment I posted that the spells use may produce powers checks, someone posted it was a useless statement.
1. Does the spell have the Evil descriptor? If yes, then powers check. If no, go to 2.
2. Does the spell have the Necromantic descriptor? If yes, go to 3. If no, go to 4.
3. Does the necromantic spell have offensive effects, create or enhance the undead, or manipulate a subject's life force? If yes to any of these, then powers check. If no, then go to 4 (and your spell is probably deathwatch).
4. Is the spell specifically listed in the Spells in Ravenloft section? If yes, then go to 5. If no, "Any aspect of a D&D Player's Handbook spell not altered in the following listings functions normally in Ravenloft." I.E., no powers check.
5. Does the specific spell listing say it requires a powers check? If yes, then powers check. If no, then no.
Keep in mind that the alternative to trusting you guys to figure this out for yourselves was about 4 pages' worth of "[PH Spell Name]: Unaltered." listings.
* As some posters have rightly pointed out, that just means the spell isn't inherently evil; it's just a tool. And like any tool, it can still be used toward evil ends. (An axe murderer earns powers checks for murdering folks, not for wielding an axe.)
All very true.
As I stated before, I voiced concern that the spells functioned much like Nightmare and Wail of the Banshee, and was wondering why the spells weren't mentioned in the Ravenloft players handbook. It just seemed like a wonderfully convienent loophole in the rules, considering the nature of ravenloft and the many spells changed. A wizard casting wail of the banshee to defend himself still incurs a powers check simply because its a death and necromantic effect, but an illusionist can cast Wierd to defend himself, and not incur any ill effects at all. I wasn't 'attacking' the writers.
It's not a loophole, they just figured that Phantasmal Killer/Weird aren't inherently evil by themselves, whereas spells like Wail of the Banshee are. Even though both end up making the victim dead, death effects function differently. They attack the very lifeforce of the victim, manipulate dark forces to function, stuff like that. They are quite different from giving someone a heart attack by scaring them with an illusion.
Also, if spells required Powers checks just because they had an effect similar to a spell that requires a Powers check, then just about every spell would probably require one.
Keep in mind that the alternative to trusting you guys to figure this out for yourselves was about 4 pages' worth of "[PH Spell Name]: Unaltered." listings.
"The most dangerous place in the world is between a Mangrum and his authorial reputation."
Thanks for outlining a flowchart we can use. That should come in handy. Also, the other authors owe you a debt for your "vigorous defense" of their work product.
Kwkblade, I agree that you have a good point; barring a re-interpretation of the spells, they certainly sound like they're messing with nasty forces. Functionally, they do resemble some necromantic or Evil spells that *do* require Powers checks. However, the rules don't include them on the list of check-provoking magics.
What I think that shows is that the Powers check rules aren't always even-handed in laying down punishments for Evil acts, but are skewed to come down hardest on certain *types* of evil. Just as you don't see many darklords whose crimes are coldly-impersonal (e.g. not many Ebeneezer Scrooge-types), and crimes against Innocents or family are punished more heavily than crimes against total strangers (even though murder should, objectively speaking, be murder regardless of who the victim is), so some kinds of magic just catch the Dark Powers' interest more than others. It's not a question of whether, objectively speaking, the gamemaster feels a spell's method of operation is evil, but whether it's the sort of magic the DPs think is suitable for seducing someone over to the dark side, and are specifically watching out for.
And if one thing is well-established about the Dark Powers, it's that they consider Necromancy to be of particular interest as a pathway to damnation. Illusion has its dark side, but it just doesn't have the track-record that Necromancy does for that purpose, so the DPs aren't watching out for it as closely.
What I think that shows is that the Powers check rules aren't always even-handed in laying down punishments for Evil acts, but are skewed to come down hardest on certain *types* of evil. Just as you don't see many darklords whose crimes are coldly-impersonal (e.g. not many Ebeneezer Scrooge-types), and crimes against Innocents or family are punished more heavily than crimes against total strangers (even though murder should, objectively speaking, be murder regardless of who the victim is), so some kinds of magic just catch the Dark Powers' interest more than others. It's not a question of whether, objectively speaking, the gamemaster feels a spell's method of operation is evil, but whether it's the sort of magic the DPs think is suitable for seducing someone over to the dark side, and are specifically watching out for.
Oh yeah, big time. I think the reason they break it down between your familiarity with the subject is because it does seem worse to, say, kill someone when you know who they are, especially when they trust or love you, and someone you are unfamiliar with.
I tend to agree with them on this anyway. For example, hiring an assassin to off someone you've only just seen just to steal their girlfriend doesn't seem nearly as bad as killing your own brother to steal his girlfriend. Don't get me wrong, they are both evil.....
And if one thing is well-established about the Dark Powers, it's that they consider Necromancy to be of particular interest as a pathway to damnation. Illusion has its dark side, but it just doesn't have the track-record that Necromancy does for that purpose, so the DPs aren't watching out for it as closely.
Yeah, they seem to really have some kinda love (or hate I guess) for Necromancy. Even stuff like Death Ward pisses them off....
with what i say here i am trying to explain:
Fireball is not even spoken about, but it can be used in very nasty ways to kill, and that is not even remotely discussed, however, a fear using spell to break down the complete nervous system and thus the life of the person is seen as evil? nah, not remotely, i see it as just another spell just like fireball to kill an opponent.
however: when used in a way to kill someone thats not in combat , so an "assassination, then that action deserves a powercheck, not the casting of the spell, just the fact he is killing a specific person, not an "evil spell".
Were this the Ask Azalin forum, this would be about the time when Azalin would start berating his petitioners for their perennial belief that the authors must have been incompetent whenever they failed to support RL DMs' relentless desire to punish their players at every possible opportunity.
Ask Azalin was awesome. It's a shame he's back to ruling Darkon and too busy to answer our questions anymore.
Yeah, they seem to really have some kinda love (or hate I guess) for Necromancy. Even stuff like Death Ward pisses them off....
Actually, Death Ward seems to be perfectly okay. It's a purely defensive effect, doesn't create or enhance undead, and doesn't mess with your life force or anyone else's. So it squeaks by without a Powers check on the same basis as Deathwatch.
Still, my guess is that the Dark Powers watch closely for any necromantic spell, then disregard the ones that turn out to be inoffensive in nature. For other kinds of magic, they only notice the spell's actual consequences, hence issues like "Isn't Phantasmal Killer a nasty way to kill somebody?" slip through the cracks. Really, if you had to pick a single school of magic to monitor more carefully than the rest, on the suspicion that its users are doing Evil, would any of the other schools even be in the running? Necromancy's a nasty school, because it was designed OOC to be the BBEGs' favorite. The Dark Powers' detection and spanking of evil-doers isn't infallible -- else, why would anyone pass a Powers check? -- but they called this one right.
Actually, Death Ward seems to be perfectly okay. It's a purely defensive effect, doesn't create or enhance undead, and doesn't mess with your life force or anyone else's. So it squeaks by without a Powers check on the same basis as Deathwatch.
Upon closer examination it seems you're right on this one. The table in the RL PHB has Necromantic spells as being 1% per spell level, but then mentions that some don't and the spell section says that these ones don't.
In Heroes of Light the Blessed Paladin has the Deathward ability, but it mentions that their use of it doesn't require a Powers check, but that's 3.0, so they must have changed it. Anyway, now I know and can use Deathward with impunity....sweet.
The Dark Powers' detection and spanking of evil-doers isn't infallible -- else, why would anyone pass a Powers check? -- but they called this one right.
I always figured that they were just looking somewhere else when you pass one. It would seem that Santa Claus it the only person who is always watching you.
Fireball is not even spoken about, but it can be used in very nasty ways to kill, and that is not even remotely discussed, however, a fear using spell to break down the complete nervous system and thus the life of the person is seen as evil? nah, not remotely, i see it as just another spell just like fireball to kill an opponent.
Agree completely. Plus, it's not like a Phantasmal Killer actually prolongs the agony of the victim or anything. It appears and attacks...the total effect is only a fraction of a round to kill the guy. The spells targets a vulnerability, that's really it. But then again, Lightning Bolt targets a vulnerability too, the vulnerability most living things have to electricity.
In Heroes of Light the Blessed Paladin has the Deathward ability, but it mentions that their use of it doesn't require a Powers check, but that's 3.0, so they must have changed it. Anyway, now I know and can use Deathward with impunity....sweet.
I think the reference in the Blessed Paladin's description was just meant as a reminder, nothing more. The 3.0 RCS book gives purely-defensive necromantic spells the same exemption from Powers checks as does the RLPHB.
Besides, "Heroes of Light" is another case where the editor's pen seems to have run out of red ink early on, without anyone noticing. ;-D
I think the reference in the Blessed Paladin's description was just meant as a reminder, nothing more. The 3.0 RCS book gives purely-defensive necromantic spells the same exemption from Powers checks as does the RLPHB.
Besides, "Heroes of Light" is another case where the editor's pen seems to have run out of red ink early on, without anyone noticing. ;-D
I've seen a lot of distaste for this particular book in different posts. Care to explain your reasoning?