Oh em GEE this spell has to be INCREDIBLY broken...

[visigani]

Unearthly Beauty...
It's range is personal so it can be persisted 24 hours a day
and it let's you kill anyone looking at you *anyone* as a supernatural ability as a free action once per round for the entire duration of the spell (Note: persisted).

It's not mind affecting, it's not a death affect... it's a transmutation affect with the Good descriptor.

24 hour supernatural ability to kill anyone that's looking at you as a free action?

That *has* to be broken as can be.

[Rabidmuskrat]

Where is it from? Saves? Spell resist?

[Karnith]

It's an 8th-level spell. Those tend to be pretty good.

Where is it from? Saves? Spell resist?
It's from the Book of Exalted Deeds. Fortitude Will save negates, no Spell Resistance (I think? It gives you an ability similar to a nymph's Blinding Beauty, and no SR is listed).

[kreenlover]

Yah, but its an 8th level spell. And, uhh, look at the abstinence component. That is going to be mighty hard for your average adventurer. (one month with no 'roll for grope' as the people in my game say? Its impossible)

(Its from BoED)

[OverdrivePrime]

Unearthly Beauty...
It's range is personal so it can be persisted 24 hours a day
and it let's you kill anyone looking at you *anyone* as a supernatural ability as a free action once per round for the entire duration of the spell (Note: persisted).

It's not mind affecting, it's not a death affect... it's a transmutation affect with the Good descriptor.

24 hour supernatural ability to kill anyone that's looking at you as a free action?

That *has* to be broken as can be.

/looks up the spell


Abstinence Component: You must abstain from sexual intercourse for one month before casting this spell. Welp, I'm out.

[LordChaos13]

Actually it's Fort-Save-Or-Blind within 60, Will-Save-Or-Die within 30

Also Im fairly sure it still counts as a Death Effect...

[Deadline]

Unearthly Beauty...
It's range is personal so it can be persisted 24 hours a day

Well, only if you are Epic Level, or are using Divine Metamagic to cheese it up. And it is an 8th level spell, and is only available to Druids, or Clerics with the Fey domain.

But yeah, if you pile on the cheese, you can break pretty much everything (and well before 15th level).

[Karnith]

Well, only if you are Epic Level, or are using Divine Metamagic to cheese it up.Or if you've got an Incantatrix in the party.

But, yeah, it's only really strong if you're already using high-op tricks and/or cheese. At which point you probably have better things you could be doing than forcing a Will save-or-die on creatures within 30 feet that can be avoided by looking away.

[Drachasor]

That spell just seems so insanely risky in regards to friendly fire / collateral damage. It's bizarre it is in the BoED.

[BRC]

it's an 8th level spell, which means it theoretically cannot be persisted.

of course it CAN, because cheese (Nightsticks), but whoever wrote this spell was not aware of that. I'm assuming it normally has very low duration.

[Agincourt]

Or if you've got an Incantatrix in the party.

But, yeah, it's only really strong if you're already using high-op tricks and/or cheese. At which point you probably have better things you could be doing than forcing a Will save-or-die on creatures within 30 feet that can be avoided by looking away.
An Incantatrix would need a spellcraft check of 60 (18 + 3 x 14 [the modified spell level]) to persist Unearthly Beauty.

I think you were reinforcing Deadline's point about needing cheese...

[Karnith]

An Incantatrix would need a spellcraft check of 60 (18 + 3 x 14 [the modified spell level]) to persist Unearthly Beauty.

I think you were reinforcing Deadline's point about needing cheese...That was my point (though honestly 60 isn't that hard to hit at level 15). If you're at the op-level where you're Persisting this spell when you first get access to it, you probably have better things to spend your resources on.

I'm assuming it normally has very low duration.One round per level, so pretty low, yeah.

[BRC]

One round per level, so pretty low, yeah.

Eh, fifteen rounds is more than the length of most Combats, so not really.

[Karnith]

Eh, fifteen rounds is more than the length of most Combats, so not really.
But you aren't likely to encounter more than one combat encounter per use of the spell, so I'd say that it's pretty comparable to a multi-target Save-or-Die. Which is, I think, appropriate for an 8th-level spell, given how easy it is to avoid.

[visigani]

But you aren't likely to encounter more than one combat encounter per use of the spell, so I'd say that it's pretty comparable to a multi-target Save-or-Die. Which is, I think, appropriate for an 8th-level spell, given how easy it is to avoid.


Except it works on constructs. It works on undead. It works on pretty much everything that can "look" at you.

It's a supernatural ability so it automatically bypasses SR, and it's neither a death effect nor mind affecting so the standard immunities do not apply.

And it's a free action Save or Die once per round. That effectively duplicates Implosion... but for longer, for cheaper, and works against incorporeal undead.

In fact, the only creatures I think that might be typically immune are oozes, and blind creatures, and creatures that are immune to transmutation effects.

Really though this would be an ideal spell for.. a Sublime Chord.
Extra Spell it at lvl 18, use that funky bardic equivalent to divine metamagic and persist it 24 hours a day.

[visigani]

And conceivably this bypasses vow of peace.

Because *you* aren't targeting anyone... and it's not a death effect, nor does casting it immediately cause harm to anyone.

"or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm."

Also... it's *any* creature looking at you. It's an ef'ng AOE....

[Andezzar]

And it is an 8th level spell, and is only available to Druids, or Clerics with the Fey domain.Or anyone with 9th level slots and Extra Spell.

[Deadline]

Really though this would be an ideal spell for.. a Sublime Chord.
Extra Spell it at lvl 18, use that funky bardic equivalent to divine metamagic and persist it 24 hours a day.

The Bardic equivalent to DMM has language that precludes this from working pre-epic (you can't use it to apply metamagic feats that would increase the level of the spell to a level you can't cast. To make this work, you'd need to have 14th level spell slots available).

@Andezzar - That assumes the GM agrees that Extra Spell actually does that. But yes, there are other questionable ways to get a spell on your list. Arcane Disciple will do it in a less questionable manner, but requires a high Wisdom tax.

[Agincourt]

I'd also like to point out this this has the drawback of potentially working on your allies. The spell affects "any creature within 30 feet of you that is looking directly at you."

The phrase "looking directly at you" is left open to interpretation, which gives mean DMs a lot of wiggle room to choose who it affects and who it does not.

[3WhiteFox3]

The Bardic equivalent to DMM has language that precludes this from working pre-epic (you can't use it to apply metamagic feats that would increase the level of the spell to a level you can't cast. To make this work, you'd need to have 14th level spell slots available).

@Andezzar - That assumes the GM agrees that Extra Spell actually does that. But yes, there are other questionable ways to get a spell on your list. Arcane Disciple will do it in a less questionable manner, but requires a high Wisdom tax.

Archivists can cast it just fine. In fact, since they can also play with DMM:Persist they are probably one of the optimal choices for the spell.

[Deadline]

Archivists can cast it just fine. In fact, since they can also play with DMM:Persist they are probably one of the optimal choices for the spell.

Yep, that's probably the easiest way to make this work.

[mregecko]

I'd also like to point out this this has the drawback of potentially working on your allies. The spell affects "any creature within 30 feet of you that is looking directly at you."

The phrase "looking directly at you" is left open to interpretation, which gives mean DMs a lot of wiggle room to choose who it affects and who it does not.

Well, you left out the first half of that sentence...

"When you choose, any creature within 30 feet of you that is looking directly at you must succeed on a Will save or die."

So, people can look at you all day long, but only if you choose do they actually have to save or die.

I don't see how that's arguable to have friendly fire effects (although the blinding part does have friendly fire effects).

I WOULD however say, it's arguable that the spell is intended to work only on humanoids. It says it works "As Blinding Beauty", which only works on humanoids.

It then says you can evoke an additional effect as a free action... Up to interpretation as to whether that additional effect is a rider on the "humanoid only" effect, or its own separate effect.

I personally don't have an opinion one way or another. :smallwink:

-- Mr

[Deophaun]

The phrase "looking directly at you" is left open to interpretation, which gives mean DMs a lot of wiggle room to choose who it affects and who it does not.
Of course, the rules for gaze attacks make it clear that characters have the option of not looking and thus not having to save. The subject of unearthly beauty gets full concealment against anyone that actively avoids looking at him in exchange.

[The Glyphstone]

"I need heals, Bob!"

"I'm trying, but you have a 50% miss chance, my touch attacks keep missing!"

"Why?"

"Because you're drop-dead gorgeous. Literally."

[ShriekingDrake]

"I need heals, Bob!"

"I'm trying, but you have a 50% miss chance, my touch attacks keep missing!"

"Why?"

"Because you're drop-dead gorgeous. Literally."

Made my day, this. :smallbiggrin:

[Agincourt]

Well, you left out the first half of that sentence...

"When you choose, any creature within 30 feet of you that is looking directly at you must succeed on a Will save or die."

So, people can look at you all day long, but only if you choose do they actually have to save or die.

I don't see how that's arguable to have friendly fire effects (although the blinding part does have friendly fire effects).

I WOULD however say, it's arguable that the spell is intended to work only on humanoids. It says it works "As Blinding Beauty", which only works on humanoids.

It then says you can evoke an additional effect as a free action... Up to interpretation as to whether that additional effect is a rider on the "humanoid only" effect, or its own separate effect.

I personally don't have an opinion one way or another. :smallwink:

-- Mr

I cut out the sentence before too, which says "you can evoke an additional effect as a free action." By my reading, the phrase "when you choose" doesn't mean whenever you choose regardless of whose turn it is, but rather at the moment you choose to activate the effect, which needs to be on your turn. In general, free actions are taken on your turn (talking is an explicit exception). The Book of Exalted Deeds, where the spell appears, was published before Swift and Immediate Actions were codified in Complete Adventurer so we can only guess as to how this spell would have been classified.

By my reading, a character needs to choose to activate this effect on their turn, and anyone within 30 feet, friend or foe, must take measures to avoid a gaze attack or be subject to will saves and potential death.

[visigani]

Well, you left out the first half of that sentence...

"When you choose, any creature within 30 feet of you that is looking directly at you must succeed on a Will save or die."

So, people can look at you all day long, but only if you choose do they actually have to save or die.

I don't see how that's arguable to have friendly fire effects (although the blinding part does have friendly fire effects).

I WOULD however say, it's arguable that the spell is intended to work only on humanoids. It says it works "As Blinding Beauty", which only works on humanoids.

It then says you can evoke an additional effect as a free action... Up to interpretation as to whether that additional effect is a rider on the "humanoid only" effect, or its own separate effect.

I personally don't have an opinion one way or another. :smallwink:

-- Mr

It says "as blinding beauty" but also states "any creature". Which is pretty explicit. It doesn't say any humanoid... it says any creature.

[Spuddles]

You can turn on blue steel, but there doesn't seem to be an off switch for duck face. Didn't your mother ever warn you about your face getting stuck like that?

[Fates]

SCRUB abstinence components. As if BoED weren't ravaging* the idea of what goodness really is enough, now they're all but stating that sex, like drugs and mindrape spells without the (Good) descriptor, is inherently EVIL.


As to the spell itself, it does seem very potent if persisted. Nice find, there.

*:smallwink:

[Eisfalken]

Monster Manual, pg. 307: Construct Type
Constructs are immune to what is listed as "death attacks". They are also immune to anything requiring a Fort save that doesn't specifically target objects or are listed as harmless.

Monster Manual, pg. 317: Undead Type
Undead are also immune to "death attacks". Same immunity to Fort save spells that don't target objects or are listed as harmless.

Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 292: Death Attacks
No mention that "death attack" has to be specified or typed. Allusion is that any save-or-die effect is a "death attack". Closest rules-law is mentioning that death ward protects against death attacks.

Player's Handbook, pg. 217: Death Ward
Makes a separate entry for "death spells" and "magical death attacks". No mention that any specific type, subtype, school, or any other identifier of magic is specifically blocked; all "magical death attacks" are blocked by the spell, meaning it could be a Transmutation (Good) spell and still be blocked because it is a save-or-die spell.

My interpretation of this rule would be that because "death attacks" are not specifically defined as a certain type of ability (extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural), and because the death ward spell itself makes no distinction about negative energy spells (EDIT: and/or Necromancy) being the only thing it protects against, that means that the rules aren't saying that a "death attack" can't be any kind of magic or even "normal" ability. It would include an assassin's Death Attack class ability, the finger of death spell, or any other save-or-die effect.

Based on this, all constructs and undead are thereby immune to this spell. Living constructs, naturally, are not immune to death effects, so they can be killed by unearthly beauty.

Is there some rules that contradict my assessment here that someone could point me towards?

[Kelb_Panthera]

SCRUB abstinence components. As if BoED weren't ravaging* the idea of what goodness really is enough, now they're all but stating that sex, like drugs and mindrape spells without the (Good) descriptor, is inherently EVIL.


As to the spell itself, it does seem very potent if persisted. Nice find, there.

*:smallwink:
It's actually discussed in the book that this is -not- the implication that should be taken from such things.

Rather it's the idea that there are spiritual benefits to giving up worldly pleasures and desires, which are in no way evil.

You abstain from sexual intercourse, not because sex is evil (it's explicitly not and there's even an exalted goddess of physical pleasures), but because it's pleasant and desireable and that test of your own will power is beneficial to your spirit in the same way that curls are good for you biceps or squats are good for your thighs.

[Fates]

Hmph. While I still personally dislike the concept (it seems heavily biased towards certain real-world religions), I can see now that you are correct, as usual.

I still won't forgive ravages or sanctify the wicked, though. :smalltongue:

[Toliudar]

There's an interesting and self-defeating aspect to this spell.

Any humanoid that gets within 60' and looks at you makes a fort save or goes blind. Anyone who succeeds against this roll knows that there's some bad mojo going on, and is more likely to avoid looking at you. Anyone who fails the fort save is blind, and therefore immune to the death effect that kicks in at 30'.

Also, +1 to the adoration of Glyphstone for the Drop Dead Gorgeous comment.

[visigani]

Monster Manual, pg. 307: Construct Type
Constructs are immune to what is listed as "death attacks". They are also immune to anything requiring a Fort save that doesn't specifically target objects or are listed as harmless.

Monster Manual, pg. 317: Undead Type
Undead are also immune to "death attacks". Same immunity to Fort save spells that don't target objects or are listed as harmless.

Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 292: Death Attacks
No mention that "death attack" has to be specified or typed. Allusion is that any save-or-die effect is a "death attack". Closest rules-law is mentioning that death ward protects against death attacks.

Player's Handbook, pg. 217: Death Ward
Makes a separate entry for "death spells" and "magical death attacks". No mention that any specific type, subtype, school, or any other identifier of magic is specifically blocked; all "magical death attacks" are blocked by the spell, meaning it could be a Transmutation (Good) spell and still be blocked because it is a save-or-die spell.

My interpretation of this rule would be that because "death attacks" are not specifically defined as a certain type of ability (extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural), and because the death ward spell itself makes no distinction about negative energy spells (EDIT: and/or Necromancy) being the only thing it protects against, that means that the rules aren't saying that a "death attack" can't be any kind of magic or even "normal" ability. It would include an assassin's Death Attack class ability, the finger of death spell, or any other save-or-die effect.

Based on this, all constructs and undead are thereby immune to this spell. Living constructs, naturally, are not immune to death effects, so they can be killed by unearthly beauty.

Is there some rules that contradict my assessment here that someone could point me towards?


SRD:
Contructs: Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects.
Death Effects are a very specific subset of spell that have the "Death" descriptor.
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Death, Mind-Affecting].
If you'll notice "Undeath to Death" functions *exactly* like "Circle of Death" but for undead. The only difference is Circle of Death has the "Death" descriptor and Undeath to Death does not.

[ericgrau]

The key when persisting it is that it is a free action. So you can use this AND a mass death spell round 1. So it's like double the death. The odd thing is that the 60 foot blindness hits before the 30 foot death, so the first effect can actually protect foes from the 2nd effect. Not that they aren't still boned. And it looks like you could suppress the blinding effect while activating the death effect.

In a party get everyone blindfolds of true darkness or similar.

[Chronos]

This is not a death effect, since it lacks the [death] descriptor. That's exactly the sort of purpose that descriptors are for.

It still won't work on constructs or undead, though, since it offers a Fort save, doesn't affect objects, and doesn't make a specific exception. Never mind; the blinding is Fort, but the death is Will for some reason.

The spell has a far worse problem, though. It doesn't say that the extra effect is usable once per round. It just says "free action". So on your turn, you activate it, then activate it again, and so on until everything within 30' has rolled a natural 1 on their saves. So it's not a save-or-die in practice; it's a just-die, and without any easily-immunized descriptors, nor even spell resistance.

[visigani]

This is not a death effect, since it lacks the [death] descriptor. That's exactly the sort of purpose that descriptors are for.

It still won't work on constructs or undead, though, since it offers a Fort save, doesn't affect objects, and doesn't make a specific exception. Never mind; the blinding is Fort, but the death is Will for some reason.

The spell has a far worse problem, though. It doesn't say that the extra effect is usable once per round. It just says "free action". So on your turn, you activate it, then activate it again, and so on until everything within 30' has rolled a natural 1 on their saves. So it's not a save-or-die in practice; it's a just-die, and without any easily-immunized descriptors, nor even spell resistance.

So, in essence, you can kill anyone that looks at you within 30 feet at any given time.

Oh, and by the way... Anima Mage. Nothing stopping a neutral Wizard from casting a Good spell, and the abstinence component doesn't require you to be good either.
The anima mage can persist spells three times per day.

[Blackhawk748]

This is not a death effect, since it lacks the [death] descriptor. That's exactly the sort of purpose that descriptors are for.

It still won't work on constructs or undead, though, since it offers a Fort save, doesn't affect objects, and doesn't make a specific exception. Never mind; the blinding is Fort, but the death is Will for some reason.

The spell has a far worse problem, though. It doesn't say that the extra effect is usable once per round. It just says "free action". So on your turn, you activate it, then activate it again, and so on until everything within 30' has rolled a natural 1 on their saves. So it's not a save-or-die in practice; it's a just-die, and without any easily-immunized descriptors, nor even spell resistance.

Oh sweet Obad Hai, WE'RE ALL FREAKIN DOOMED! I DONT WANNA DIE!!

Now that thats out of the way im gonna walk around with a Blindfold of Blindsight on at all times

[Rubik]

Oh sweet Obad Hai, WE'RE ALL FREAKIN DOOMED! I DONT WANNA DIE!!

Now that thats out of the way im gonna walk around with a Blindfold of Blindsight on at all timesNow just wait until the caster is running around ethereal, or has Darkstalker. Then you're really screwed.

And not in the way you'd normally expect from a dryad.

[Urpriest]

Don't want to rain on folks' parade here, but the spell's phrasing does make it sound like you only get the death gaze once during the spell's duration, considering that it says "at any time" where time is singular.

[Blackhawk748]

ok i feel a little better now, thank you oh mighty Ur Priest

[Oko and Qailee]

SCRUB abstinence components. As if BoED weren't ravaging* the idea of what goodness really is enough, now they're all but stating that sex, like drugs and mindrape spells without the (Good) descriptor, is inherently EVIL.


Well I think the point they're trying to make with stuff like this is that those things are enjoyable so you have to give them up, hence why it's a sacrifice cost.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well I think the point they're trying to make with stuff like this is that those things are enjoyable so you have to give them up, hence why it's a sacrifice cost.
ummm...... ahem.

It's actually discussed in the book that this is -not- the implication that should be taken from such things.

Rather it's the idea that there are spiritual benefits to giving up worldly pleasures and desires, which are in no way evil.

You abstain from sexual intercourse, not because sex is evil (it's explicitly not and there's even an exalted goddess of physical pleasures), but because it's pleasant and desireable and that test of your own will power is beneficial to your spirit in the same way that curls are good for you biceps or squats are good for your thighs.

Is it still a ninja'ing if there's 4 and 1/2 hours between the posts?

:biggrin:

[Rubik]

It's actually discussed in the book that this is -not- the implication that should be taken from such things.

Rather it's the idea that there are spiritual benefits to giving up worldly pleasures and desires, which are in no way evil.

You abstain from sexual intercourse, not because sex is evil (it's explicitly not and there's even an exalted goddess of physical pleasures), but because it's pleasant and desireable and that test of your own will power is beneficial to your spirit in the same way that curls are good for you biceps or squats are good for your thighs.Why is making people miserable considered Good?

[edit] Oh, right. You can't answer that because of real-world religion stuff. Never mind.

[Chronos]

Quoth Urpriest:

Don't want to rain on folks' parade here, but the spell's phrasing does make it sound like you only get the death gaze once during the spell's duration, considering that it says "at any time" where time is singular.
I'm pretty sure that was the intention, but it doesn't actually follow from what they wrote. "At any time" would include "a time a half-second after you previously activated it". The singular isn't significant, since "at any times" wouldn't be grammatical.

EDIT:

Why is making people miserable considered Good?
Making others miserable isn't Good. Making yourself miserable can be.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why is making people miserable considered Good?

[edit] Oh, right. You can't answer that because of real-world religion stuff. Never mind.

You're not making anyone miserable by -choosing- to abstain from certain activities that would otherwise have no impact on your alignment. None of the sacred vows or abstinence components are tied to evil behavior. A good character is expected to abstain from evil behavior without -any- mechanical incentive simply to remain good (and to prevent society from putting him down like a rabid dog.)

The problem is that people insist on looking at the moral axis of alignment as binary. "If not doing something is good then doing it must be evil." (Forgive the double entendre.) This is not the case. The moral axis of alignment has -three- points. In the cases of sacred vows and abstinence components the character is -choosing- to refrain from a pleasant or desireable but firmly neutral act.

As for the real-world religion thing, there are a number of belief systems, both western and eastern, that express the idea of voluntarily giving up worldly pleasures and desires for spiritual benefits without saying or implying that those pleasures and desires are bad in any way.

[Spuddles]

You're not making anyone miserable by -choosing- to abstain from certain activities that would otherwise have no impact on your alignment. None of the sacred vows or abstinence components are tied to evil behavior. A good character is expected to abstain from evil behavior without -any- mechanical incentive simply to remain good (and to prevent society from putting him down like a rabid dog.)

The problem is that people insist on looking at the moral axis of alignment as binary. "If not doing something is good then doing it must be evil." (Forgive the double entendre.) This is not the case. The moral axis of alignment has -three- points. In the cases of sacred vows and abstinence components the character is -choosing- to refrain from a pleasant or desireable but firmly neutral act.

As for the real-world religion thing, there are a number of belief systems, both western and eastern, that express the idea of voluntarily giving up worldly pleasures and desires for spiritual benefits without saying or implying that those pleasures and desires are bad in any way.

Seems more to do with Law & Chaos than Good & Evil, to me.

I mean, why wouldn't an evil wizard that wants to take over the world also not practice discipline and stuff so he can not get charmed or poisoned?

All the abstinence stuff is the sort of thing an evil Shaolin monk would do and it would give him ultimate power and then the plucky hero would trick him into sipping some wine and then slap-fight would ensue and the tyrant's reign would be over.

[Fates]

You're not making anyone miserable by -choosing- to abstain from certain activities that would otherwise have no impact on your alignment. None of the sacred vows or abstinence components are tied to evil behavior. A good character is expected to abstain from evil behavior without -any- mechanical incentive simply to remain good (and to prevent society from putting him down like a rabid dog.)

The problem is that people insist on looking at the moral axis of alignment as binary. "If not doing something is good then doing it must be evil." (Forgive the double entendre.) This is not the case. The moral axis of alignment has -three- points. In the cases of sacred vows and abstinence components the character is -choosing- to refrain from a pleasant or desireable but firmly neutral act.

As for the real-world religion thing, there are a number of belief systems, both western and eastern, that express the idea of voluntarily giving up worldly pleasures and desires for spiritual benefits without saying or implying that those pleasures and desires are bad in any way.

I agree for the most part, but I feel that, as Spuddles just mentioned, the question is more that of Law versus Chaos than Good vs Evil. No chaotic good character I've ever seen (barring under-aged) would abstain from any sort of substances or from sex and believe that it was in some way spiritually fulfilling. And many real world cultures also associate certain sexual acts with purity, goodness, and spiritual fulfillment, but nowhere in BoED are these associations made- there are several rules that reward abstinence, but not one that I've seen rewards any form of sexuality. The logical association to be made, then, is that the writers are either contradicting themselves, and are implying that sex is evil, or are biased towards real-world cultures that teach that abstinence is a sign of purity and that sexual conduct is not.

[georgie_leech]

The logical association to be made, then, is that the writers are either contradicting themselves, and are implying that sex is evil, or are biased towards real-world religions that teach that abstinence is a sign of purity and that sexual conduct is not.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about religion; Western Society as a whole tends to be rather prudish or embarrassed when it comes to sex. Saving Yourself for Marriage(tm) isn't just practised by religious folk.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Seems more to do with Law & Chaos than Good & Evil, to me.

I mean, why wouldn't an evil wizard that wants to take over the world also not practice discipline and stuff so he can not get charmed or poisoned?

All the abstinence stuff is the sort of thing an evil Shaolin monk would do and it would give him ultimate power and then the plucky hero would trick him into sipping some wine and then slap-fight would ensue and the tyrant's reign would be over.
This I have no rebuttal for, mostly because I largely agree. It does, however, make even stronger my orginal point that doing the things those options ask you to abstain from is -not- evil.

They're not inherently lawful or chaotic on their own, for the most part, either.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about religion; Western Society as a whole tends to be rather prudish or embarrassed when it comes to sex. Saving Yourself for Marriage(tm) isn't just practised by religious folk.

And I am forever chagrinned by this fact, living in the west (technically the south here in the US) and having a wife that was afflicted by this attitude to some degree.

[Fates]

It doesn't necessarily have to be about religion; Western Society as a whole tends to be rather prudish or embarrassed when it comes to sex. Saving Yourself for Marriage(tm) isn't just practised by religious folk.

Right you are- I should probably have said "cultures" rather than "religions" back there, as it's more accurate and encompassing, besides which we're verging on a rules breach as it is with all this talk of religion. I'll go ahead and remedy that.

[georgie_leech]

And I am forever chagrinned by this fact, living in the west (technically the south here in the US) and having a wife that was afflicted by this attitude to some degree.

Yeah, Western Society as short hand for Western Europe and North America. Sorry, been studying too many general history topics where it basically means White People.

[Fates]

Yeah, Western Society as short hand for Western Europe and North America. Sorry, been studying too many general history topics where it basically means White People.

Ah, yes, that old misnomer. I've lived most of the last few years in the north-midwestern US, and, despite being east of Asia and West of Europe, we're still somehow the West, and Asia is the east. And Central/South America and Africa aren't anything, because they aren't as economically powerful as we are.

Damn it, I hate it when it remember how much of our society is based on these silly, ridiculous concepts.

[ericgrau]

All cultures can be prudish, really. It's more of a prudish exalted thing than anything. And as someone pointed out even then BoED explains that it isn't about avoiding evil. It's more about monkish asceticism, alongside bland food, self-imposed poverty and so on.

I know some aren't, but IMO it's more because it's hot outside.

[Fates]

Oh god, yes. It seems to be hot basically everywhere except where it's normally hot. My brain doesn't like this weather. My body doesn't like this weather either. I wish it was winter again. Wisconsin's not cold enough for me- I think I might move to Siberia.

[Chronos]

Y'know, even with the once-per-duration limitation, and even without any cheese like DMM, this spell is still incredibly broken. Suppose that, on the first round of the encounter, you cast it with its normal duration, and then use the one-time-only special ability immediately. What do you get?

It's a mass save-or-die, that's not a [death] or [mind-effecting] effect, that requires a save other than Fort, that affects all creature types, that isn't limited by HD or HP, and that doesn't even offer spell resistance. Plus, for the rest of combat, you also get another decent (albeit more limited) save-or-suck every single round. And, if you're casting this as a druid (probably more common than the Fey domain or archivists), you can share it with your animal companion for double the beauty. This is pretty much across-the-board better than something like Wail of the Banshee or Implosion, in many different ways, and it's a level lower.

[Sith_Happens]

Y'know, even with the once-per-duration limitation, and even without any cheese like DMM, this spell is still incredibly broken. Suppose that, on the first round of the encounter, you cast it with its normal duration, and then use the one-time-only special ability immediately. What do you get?

It's a mass save-or-die, that's not a [death] or [mind-effecting] effect, that requires a save other than Fort, that affects all creature types, that isn't limited by HD or HP, and that doesn't even offer spell resistance. Plus, for the rest of combat, you also get another decent (albeit more limited) save-or-suck every single round. And, if you're casting this as a druid (probably more common than the Fey domain or archivists), you can share it with your animal companion for double the beauty. This is pretty much across-the-board better than something like Wail of the Banshee or Implosion, in many different ways, and it's a level lower.

But is it worth the components?:smalltongue:

[Duke of Urrel]

I have three comments.

(1) Firstly, I regard the sexual abstinence thing merely as a means of recharging a very powerful special ability. That's all it is. After all, Unearthly Beauty does have an undeniable sexual component. If you want to unleash power as awesome as that, you need to charge it up first, which means: Don't waste it on sex. This isn't a morality thing. It's all about conserving fuel.

(2) Secondly, for any creature that is truly Good, there's a natural restriction on the use of a special ability that kills: Killing is morally objectionable unless it's really justified. It's absolutely not Good to kill innocent bystanders in addition to dangerous enemies.

(3) Thirdly, as others have pointed out, the power to kill anybody who looks at you can affect allies as well as enemies, unless you warn your allies to take precautions, and a warning to them is likely to be a warning to your enemies as well. I don't believe you can pick and choose which creatures will be killed by your Unearthly-Beauty-like power when they look at you and which will be spared. It's always all of them or none of them. As with Mage's Disjunction, sometimes the very fact that a thing is extremely powerful imposes a limit on its usefulness.

[Augmental]

(3) Thirdly, as others have pointed out, the power to kill anybody who looks at you can affect allies as well as enemies, unless you warn your allies to take precautions, and a warning to them is likely to be a warning to your enemies as well.

Unless you warn your allies about the spell before getting into a fight.

[Eisfalken]

SRD:
Death Effects are a very specific subset of spell that have the "Death" descriptor.
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Death, Mind-Affecting].

The problem is that we aren't just talking about the Death subtype of spell. We're talking about "death effects", lowercase, and not specifically listed as magical in nature.

If they said that constructs were immune to death magic effects (the same way they say elves are immune to sleep magic effects), then it would obviously be talking about spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

However, they didn't specify that only magic was the case here, either by italicizing (to indicate a specific family of spells) or capitalizing/bracketing the word (to indicate a spell descriptor) to let us know that "death attack" means something magic-based.

The SRD does the same as the PHB/DMG on this; there's specifically no language whatsoever that "death attack" means that it is limited to anything magical, or it would have said so like it does in several other places in both the SRD and core books about other, very different issues (i.e. elven immunities).

Having said that, this rule is (and may be intentionally) vague in language. If that's the case, and there's nothing more firm to go on, then this part of the logic is essentially DM opinion: can constructs/undead be affected by non-magical death attacks, or death attacks that target non-Fort saves?


If you'll notice "Undeath to Death" functions *exactly* like "Circle of Death" but for undead. The only difference is Circle of Death has the "Death" descriptor and Undeath to Death does not.

This is actually another interesting case of language, and may muddy the issue further: it never actually mentions the word "death" anywhere but the spell name. It only says "destroys", which only implies (without RAW specifying) that it works on creatures with weaknesses against spells targeting objects.

What makes me say this? Disintegrate. In not one place of the spell description does it ever mention "death" by any means (either indirectly in the spell description, or directly as a spell descriptor or what happens to the target). And because it specifically has a saving throw that targets objects, it goes right around the construct/undead immunity to any Fort-save effect. Same thing with turning undead to destroy them: it's not a "death" effect so much as a "destruction" one, doing virtually the same thing as a disintegrate spell in my view; it doesn't even give a save or SR, doesn't do damage, it just makes them "destroyed".

When considering the way turn/destroy undead and disintegrate works, my opinion is that undeath to death (which actually says it "destroys" undead) works for the most part because it isn't a "death attack" as much as it is a "destruction attack". It even avoids a Fort save to keep from triggering that immunity.


Having said all of this, let me say this as well: the RAW seem somewhat vague to me on this matter, and I'm calling it like I'm reading it unless someone can point me to a Sage Advice article, official FAQ, or other material that contradicts my reading of these rules. "Death attack" is listed completely separately from the section on Magic dealing with the Death descriptor for spells. That alone says we're talking about two very different things here, unless (like I said) someone can point out the flaw in my reading of these rules.

And by all means, I would be glad to see that loophole before some munchkin gets to the table with a grin on his face and a stack of books to exploit...

[ericgrau]

Ya and that was what all that blindsight discussion was about.

If you interpret the death effect as once per casting, then the advantage of persisting it is you can now do it twice in the first round. Once off of persist, then again from replacing it with the new spell. Going from broken to twice as broken.

[Eisfalken]

Just as an aside, the SRD (and DMG) description of a slaying arrow seems to agree with me about the "death vs. destruction" angle. From the SRD (bold is my emphasis):


Slaying Arrow: This +1 arrow is keyed to a particular type or subtype of creature. If it strikes such a creature, the target must make a DC 20 Fortitude save or die (or, in the case of unliving targets, be destroyed) instantly. Note that even creatures normally exempt from Fortitude saves (undead and constructs) are subject to this attack. When keyed to a living creature, this is a death effect (and thus death ward protects a target).

There seems a definite distinction between "death" and "destruction", and that this concept was baked into a number of rules in the game, but that they didn't codify it at all with some better rules.

Which is in no way saying I still don't have an imperfect reading of the rules here, just that I really, really think I'm reading them correctly, both RAW and RAI. I've been through errata and FAQs, and can't find anything to contradict me on this one.

Is there a Dragon magazine with a Sage Advice talking about this that I can reference?

[TuggyNE]

Just as an aside, the SRD (and DMG) description of a slaying arrow seems to agree with me about the "death vs. destruction" angle. From the SRD (bold is my emphasis):



There seems a definite distinction between "death" and "destruction", and that this concept was baked into a number of rules in the game, but that they didn't codify it at all with some better rules.

There is. This shows that not all save or die effects are death effects. Full stop.