Implosion seems incomplete

[VoidSwimmer]

Im sorry if these issues were addressed before in a thread, but maybe if thats the case you could just link me to where this was brought up.


Problem 1: Various creatures such as golems and skeletons are immune to this effect for no reason. Wouldn’t pulverizing a skeleton into a tiny ball of bone dust destroy it? As it is the spell doesn’t work on it because it isn’t a living creature, which brings of the question of WHY the spell only works on living creatures? Does it actually kill by mechanical means or by terminating life-force and THEN smashing something into a ball? If it’s the former, the spell should be re-written to include EVERYTHING that stops working when crushed into a little ball. The life-force version would also kill incorporeal things, adding a problem to the spells current list of immune beings.

Problem 2: Opposite of Problem 1. Oozes and some Elementals might be able to survive the mechanical effect of this spell, as they are elastic without much anatomy. Yet the spell still kills them. Again, if it works on life-force this makes sense, but if it works by actually imploding it gets fuzzy. Also, Golems DO have life force. The life force of an Elemental. So that makes the immunity of golems questionable if the spell uses life-energy.

Problem 3: If the spell works on life force (solving some of the above problems) it definitely needs the Death descriptor, which it is missing.

Problem 4 (a big one): If it works via physical crushing it STILL seems to need the Death descriptor. The spell Detonate (PHII) explicitly causes the exact inverse of Implosion (death by physically exploding target, in this case via internal fireball) and that has the Death descriptor. Avasculate (necromancy, hurts via mechanical means however) and Power Word: Kill (A compulsion that kills without necromancy) are also both Death spells, despite not snuffing out the life-energy of a target directly with negative energy as the other Death spells usually do, thus lending more support to this argument. Further support comes from 3.0 with the spell Death By Thorns, which is a Death spell Conjuration that kills by mechanical means.
However, Detonate is all the argument really needs in my opinion, as it very elegantly demonstrates that violently turning something into a pink mist is still a Death descriptor spell if it requires a save-or-die, and Implosion does just that.


To sum up: This spell works on things it shouldn’t and fails on thing it should destroy and/or it needs the Death descriptor.

Question: Did WotC rule on any of these and/or has the community reached a general agreement on how to re-write Implosion to make it make sense?

[Flickerdart]

The only restriction on Implosion is that the target must be corporeal. Where are you getting that skeletons are immune?

[Zaq]

The only restriction on Implosion is that the target must be corporeal. Where are you getting that skeletons are immune?

The spell itself doesn't say they're immune, but since it's a Fort save that doesn't affect objects, all undead are immune. That's a general rule.

Regarding the [Death] descriptor, I'm torn. On the one hand, it's a 9th level spell, and the [Death] descriptor doesn't do anything but weaken it by giving people another way to become immune. A caster who has access to Implosion probably has plenty of ways to remove you from play on a failed Fort save, and I'd rather they be casting Implosion than Gate. On the other hand, it's not like weakening the mightiest of magics is necessarily a bad thing; 9ths are crazy, but that doesn't mean they should be left untouched. Overall, I think that if you gave it the [Death] tag, high-level casters would just find another trick, so it wouldn't be making a huge difference overall.

[Lightlawbliss]

I have no idea what you are looking at. No version of implosion I know of matches what you have just described.

[Thrawn183]

The key to implosion is that while it kills creatures, it isn't a death effect nor is it negative energy. This means that it forces a Fortitude Save or die that gets around things like Death Ward.

It's basically a spell designed to get around Death Ward while not completely trashing creatures without a Con score.

[mattie_p]

To sum up: This spell [Implosion] works on things it shouldn’t and fails on thing it should destroy and/or it needs the Death descriptor.

Question: Did WotC rule on any of these and/or has the community reached a general agreement on how to re-write Implosion to make it make sense?

Answer: I don't think so. Excellent find though, I recommend crossposting to the dysfunctional rules thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778) as well.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Problem 1:
Your correct on this issue, but this is due to undead being immune to any effect that requires a fortitude save that doesn't also affect objects. It be a fair ruling for a DM to decide undead and constructs are subject to implosion.

A simple explanation is the destructive resonance only works on living creatures. But unless the spell uses negative energy the death descriptor doesn't apply.


Problem 2: Opposite of Problem 1. Oozes and some Elementals might be able to survive the mechanical effect of this spell, as they are elastic without much anatomy. Yet the spell still kills them. Again, if it works on life-force this makes sense, but if it works by actually imploding it gets fuzzy. Also, Golems DO have life force. The life force of an Elemental. So that makes the immunity of golems questionable if the spell uses life-energy.
The word implode means to violently collapse inward. There is no reason for them to survive being imploded. Oozes and Elementals aren't immune to being bludgeoned to death why would they be immune to being crushed? And using your logic death effects should work on golem's but they don't. Don't confuse an animating force with a life force.


Problem 3: If the spell works on life force (solving some of the above problems) it definitely needs the Death descriptor, which it is missing.
It doesn't work on life force it implodes the subject crushing it, I'd imagine it leaves quite a mess.


Problem 4 Death effects use negative energy Implosion does not. The problem is not that implosion lacks the death descriptor its that detonate has the death descriptor.

[VoidSwimmer]

I have no idea what you are looking at. No version of implosion I know of matches what you have just described.

I was using the spell as described in the SRD. I have a number of books but, by happenstance, the PHB isn’t one of them. Here is the exact text:



You create a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature’s body. For each round you concentrate, you cause one creature to collapse in on itself, killing it. (This effect, being instantaneous, cannot be dispelled.)
You can target a particular creature only once with each casting of the spell.
Implosion has no effect on creatures in gaseous form or on incorporeal creatures.

That’s why the undead immunity to the effect (as it is a fort save) doesn’t make sense compared to the actual written spell. Not having a heartbeat or even life energy shouldn’t protect them form being crushed into a tiny ball, as they too are corporeal creatures.




Death effects use negative energy Implosion does not. The problem is not that implosion lacks the death descriptor its that detonate has the death descriptor.
This logic seems sound, although it also ignores how Power Word: Kill also has an erroneous Death descriptor in this case. It uses a Compulsion effect to make the target decide to die. It isn’t Necromancy, it’s a mind-effecting Enchantment, so it shouldn’t be a Death spell either.

I do agree with you, however, on your point about oozes and elementals. The violence involved in imploding would kill them, I suppose.


Additional question: If I were DMing and I house-ruled that it did work on undead and constructs how would I resolve the saving throw for them, as they have no Con to save with?

[Lightlawbliss]

...

Additional question: If I were DMing and I house-ruled that it did work on undead and constructs how would I resolve the saving throw for them, as they have no Con to save with?

undead and constructs have a fort save value

[VoidSwimmer]

undead and constructs have a fort save value

Yeah they do...I just cant remember how they get calculated in case my Zombie or whatever doesnt happen to be one of the ones listed in the MM. It doesnt come up very often.

[eggynack]

Yeah they do...I just cant remember how they get calculated in case my Zombie or whatever doesnt happen to be one of the ones listed in the MM. It doesnt come up very often.
Same way you calculate any monster's fort saves. Zombies are undead, so they have good will saves and poor fort and ref saves. I don't know the exact calculations for how HD effects saves, but all of the values are out there if you look. I'd just look at the saves of a class at the amount of HD you want.

[Spuddles]

Yeah they do...I just cant remember how they get calculated in case my Zombie or whatever doesnt happen to be one of the ones listed in the MM. It doesnt come up very often.

You use undead save progression (good will, poor everything else) for a creature of however many hit dice, then add the relevent ability modifier. Non abilities are treated as a bonus of zero.

[VoidSwimmer]

Thanks. It was what to do with a non-ability that threw me off.

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't know where you guys are getting that [Death] spells have anything to do with negative energy. Power Word Kill clearly disproves that.


Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors 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.

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

A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.



If you need more evidence, look at the text for Death Ward.

The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.

The spell lists death spells seperately from negative energy effects, plain as day.

[Crake]

I don't know where you guys are getting that [Death] spells have anything to do with negative energy. Power Word Kill clearly disproves that.





If you need more evidence, look at the text for Death Ward.


The spell lists death spells seperately from negative energy effects, plain as day.

thats because death is a descriptor, wheras negative energy is a type of damage source for things like negative levels, ability drain/damage, or just straight up hp damage. But if you have a look at various death effects/spells, many of them have a close association with negative energy. That isn't to say they are the same thing though, just similar from a fluff perspective

[KillianHawkeye]

thats because death is a descriptor, wheras negative energy is a type of damage source for things like negative levels, ability drain/damage, or just straight up hp damage. But if you have a look at various death effects/spells, many of them have a close association with negative energy. That isn't to say they are the same thing though, just similar from a fluff perspective

The fact that it is many, but not all, means that it is a coincidence. Or that negative energy leans towards death effects. Not that the two are always necessarily linked or that the terms are interchangeable.

[Rainbownaga]

I'm guessing the inability to harm constructs and undead has more to do with the targeting aspect of the spell; just as you can't use it to destroy a tree or a statue, you can't 'lock on' to the undead or construct. Similar to how you can't shoot magic missiles into the darkness:smalltongue: .

If you researched a version that could destroy trees and sculptures, it would be able to kill undead and constructs too.

And since it doesn't really directly 'make things dead' it's not a [death] power, just as phantasmal killer isn't. It just so happens that being violently imploded disagrees with most creatures.

That said, what happens to a troll? Surely there should be enough still-living mass to regenerate even though by RAW they're just dead.

[Clistenes]

Are you sure Implosion can't damage objects? I think being crushed would destroy almost anything (barrels, boxes, armor, trees...etc.). Cloth may be immune to crushing, and boulders could be too.

EDIT: The text says "targeted corporeal creature", so I guess you can't target objects, but is that the same as being immune to it?

[mattie_p]

Are you sure Implosion can't damage objects? I think being crushed would destroy almost anything (barrels, boxes, armor, trees...etc.). Cloth may be immune to crushing, and boulders could be too.

EDIT: The text says "targeted corporeal creature", so I guess you can't target objects, but is that the same as being immune to it?

Pretty much. I am unaware of any way to change the legal target of a spell from creature to object.

[3WhiteFox3]

Personally, Death Ward makes no sense. Why does it protect against any [Death] effect? If you give Implosion the [Death] tag, then somehow Death Ward protects against a certain spell crushing you to death, but not actually being crushed to death by a falling rock or beaten to death by clubs. The problem exists out of Implosion too, quite a few effects are [Death] but aren't really that different technically from just being attacked until you're dead.

I realize that Death Ward is supposedly a spell designed to protect against people who maximize their Spell DCs and spam SoDs. But, it's not like a SoD is really that much different from being hit with a Save or Lose, both mean the end of the encounter in the end.

[Neo Tin Robo]

That said, what happens to a troll? Surely there should be enough still-living mass to regenerate even though by RAW they're just dead.

If a troll fails the save, it dies. Dead things don't regenerate.


Pretty much. I am unaware of any way to change the legal target of a spell from creature to object.

If it just had the little (object) note after the save/SR line, it could target objects and the spell would make a lot more sense overall.

[VoidSwimmer]

Personally, Death Ward makes no sense. Why does it protect against any [Death] effect? If you give Implosion the [Death] tag, then somehow Death Ward protects against a certain spell crushing you to death, but not actually being crushed to death by a falling rock or beaten to death by clubs. The problem exists out of Implosion too, quite a few effects are [Death] but aren't really that different technically from just being attacked until you're dead.

I realize that Death Ward is supposedly a spell designed to protect against people who maximize their Spell DCs and spam SoDs. But, it's not like a SoD is really that much different from being hit with a Save or Lose, both mean the end of the encounter in the end.


Death Ward is designed against:

Being exploded (Detonate)
Psychic assault (Power Word: Kill)
Spiky things (Death by Thorns)


It does not protect against:

Being imploded (Implode)
Dying of fright (Phantasma Killer)


This does seem a bit arbitrary. I think not everyone was on the same page when these spells and effects were being written.